Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Travel to Work

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the desirability of making the cost of travel to work allowable against tax.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): My right hon. Friend receives representations on this subject from time to time.

Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that between 60 and 70 per cent. of all car registrations are for company cars? Is there any reason why the more fortunate should enjoy tax remissions which are denied to commuters, thereby discouraging public transport and increasing the deficit which eventually has to be paid by the Exchequer?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend will know that when company cars are used for private purposes they are taxed and come within the tax set-up. They are not treated in that respect any differently from anybody else's expenditure on travel.

Mr. Costain: Does not the Minister appreciate the effect of the high cost of railway fares, particularly on those living in areas such as the South Coast? Does he not realise the effect that this will have on housing, which will become more and more expensive in London, because people will be unable, owing to the constant increases in railway fares, to live in the country? Cannot he make the cost of travel to work allowable against tax, in order to help the housing situation?

Mr. Davies: I fully appreciate the difficulties caused to many people by the high cost of travel to work. Surely, the difficulties are greatest in the rural areas, where there is very low economic activity. But the way to solve the problem is not through the tax system.

Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend try to be a little more open-minded about this matter? Is he not aware that literally hundreds of thousands of commuters have had six fare increases in the last two years and that travel-to-work costs have gone up by about 120 per cent., although in that period earnings rose by only 30 per cent.? Will he not keep an open mind in order to see whether some help can be given in relation to some part of travel-to-work costs at the basic rate of tax?

Mr. Davies: The difficulty here is to distinguish between one kind of expenditure and another. Costs have gone up over a wide field, and I do not think that it would be right or fair to allow relief on one kind of expenditure while denying it in regard to another.

Mr. Bowden: Is the Minister aware that his replies will cause great anger among a large number of commuters? His totally unreasonable attitude in refusing to look at this matter with an open mind is disgraceful. Some of my constituents have to spend a quarter of their gross earnings on getting to and from work. Will not the Minister look at it again?

Economic Policy

Mr. Canavan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now take further steps to reflate the economy.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): I cannot at this stage add to what I said in my statement of 26th October. In addition to the tax reliefs and increases in public expenditure which I then announced, I intend—if economic and financial circumstances permit—in my spring Budget to provide some further stimulus to economic activity.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the staggering figures issued earlier this week, showing more than 1½ million unemployed, including more than 200,000 in Scotland,


does my right hon. Friend agree with the secretary of the Labour Party in Scotland that the Labour Government ought to be deeply ashamed of these figures. As one of the principal causes of unemployment has been the cuts in public expenditure, will my right hon. Friend take immediate steps to increase public spending, which is absolutely essential for social services as well as for the provision of more jobs?

Mr. Healey: No Government could take any pleasure in the figures that were announced this week. I ad occasion recently to read a lengthy statement by the Labour Party in Scotland about unemployment, and it paid real tribute to the measures which the present Government have taken to limit the impact of unemployment and to keep it as low as possible. But I shall, as my hon. Friend perhaps knows, have an opportunity tomorrow afternoon to discuss the matter further with the Scottish council of the Labour Party.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is not "reflation" the most dangerous and misleading word in the whole of the economic dictionary? Should not its use be banned until inflation has been eliminated?

Mr. Healey: If I am asked my opinion on that suggestion, my answer is that I should like to ban every noun which ends in the syllables "flation", because I think that inflation, reflation, deflation and disinflation all have implications which are grossly misleading at various times.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Will my right hon. Friend take another look at the problems of the building industry and see whether he can make available an increased sum of money which would help to expand the public building sector, thereby reducing the tragic figures of unemployment in that sector?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend will be aware that we gave substantial stimulus to the construction industry in the July measures and in those which I announced in October. I have noted that the bodies representing the industry now expect an upturn in the current year. But I shall keep this matter under review and consider whether further assistance is appropriate.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) men

tioned unemployment. How does the Chancellor of the Exchequer account for the fact that, according to a Written Answer that I have received today, unemployment in this country is higher than in any other major Western industrial country—higher than in the United States, France, Germany and Italy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] This is from a Written Answer that I have received today.

Mr. Healey: I can account for the statistics in many ways. For example, Germany has been able to export unemployment on a very large scale by getting rid of foreign workers to Yugoslavia and Turkey. We welcome very much the recent fall in unemployment in the United States. That is because the United States is following policies which I hope to imitate this year in achieving a substantially faster growth rate than in the past.

Government Debt

Mr. Gow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total of Government debt on 1st March 1974 and on 1st January 1978; and by how much he estimates that debt interest in the current financial year will exceed that for the year ended 5th April 1974.

Mr. Healey: Government debt outstanding has fallen as a percentage of GDP from 70 per cent. in 1974 to 64 per cent. in 1977. Excluding official holdings, general Government debt was £51 billion at the end of March 1974 and is provisionally estimated at £87 billion at the end of September 1977.
Debt interest payments in 1977–78 on the definitions used in the public expenditure White Papers are expected to be some £1·3 billion more than in 1973–74.
I take this opportunity to inform the House that the Government intend to repay shortly the equivalent of $1 billion to the IMF. A copy of an explanatory notice to the Press is being placed in the Library.

Mr. Gow: Does the Chancellor agree that an increase in the National Debt of 30 per cent. while he has been Chancellor is something of which he ought not to be proud? Will he take this opportunity to tell the House that he will use a substantial part of the revenue from North Sea oil to repay Government debt


and also to ensure that the next generation will not be saddled with the profligacy of his Chancellorship?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman talks about profligacy. I would refer him to the first part of my answer, which shows that Government debt outstanding in 1974 was substantially higher as a percentage of GDP than it is today. The present Government should take credit for reducing the proportion of GDP involved in Government sector debt.
With regard to repayment of debt out of North Sea oil, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the magnitudes involved he will realise what an ill-calculated question that is. If he is referring to our external debts, my own view is that we should during the coming period seek to spread the schedule of repayment of external debts well beyond the date on which our current obligations expire.

Dr. Bray: Can my right hon. Friend say how our repayment to the IMF affects the conditions imposed by the IMF and whether he is planning any further repayment which would finally enable us to escape from the impact of those conditions?

Mr. Healey: The repayment of debt to the IMF in no way affects the commitments which the Government made to the IMF when we negotiated the loan in December 1976. I presume that that is what my hon. Friend is referring to. Those commitments expire the moment the Government decide that they want to dispense with the standby agreement. We shall be considering with the IMF staff in May whether the time has come to cancel that arrangement.

Mr. Cope: Is the Chancellor proud of the fact that, under his management, payments of debt interest on the total public sector debt are for the first time larger than the total expenditure on the National Health Service and personal social services?

Mr. Healey: I am not proud of the debts which in large part I inherited from the previous Administration. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Oh, yes. I have given the figure, which shows that the debt which I inherited from the last Administration was £51 billion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not particularly proud of that figure.

Mr. Ron Thomas: May I ask my right hon. Friend to ignore the pontifications of the militant monetarists on the Benches opposite and listen to what the TUC is saying? It is urging him to inject at least £3 billion into the economy now if we are to have any hope of bringing unemployment down to below the 1 million mark.

Mr. Healey: I never ignore any contribution to general knowledge by any hon. Member of the House. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have taken careful note of the points put to me by the economic committee of the TUC when we met on Tuesday. The results of my deliberations will be made plain when I introduce the next Budget.

Sir G. Howe: Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), may I ask whether the Chancellor accepts that the real burden of debt interest at the end of last year was 15 per cent. higher than it was at the end of 1974? Does he not acknowledge that the main reason why it has become possible for him to start repaying the IMF debt is the strength contributed to our economy by North Sea oil and not the policies of this Government? Finally, will he accept that the country has every reason to be grateful to the IMF, because without its firm discipline this Government would have taken the country into bankruptcy? We have every reason to be fearful of the prospects of what the Government would do if tomorrow they were free from that discipline.

Mr. Healey: I would agree with the IMF staff rather than with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The staff pointed out during our discussions some months ago that the staggering turn-round in the performance of our economy, particularly in our performance on inflation, was due to the steps taken by the present Government and the support for the present Government through the patriotism and common sense of our trade union movement—a patriotism and common sense which is consistently derided by hon. Members opposite.

Pay Policy

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer with whom he has so


far had discussions on the possibility of a stage four pay policy.

Mr. Healey: This subject seems to crop up in many conversations I have.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that he will not continue with the present type of pay policy into a fourth stage? Does he realise and accept that, if he were to pursue a Socialist incomes policy covering all forms of incomes and wealth, he would be likely to get far more support, certainly from this side of the House, than if he were to continue with the anomalous and unfair present policy of pay restraint?

Mr. Healey: There are rigidities in the policy that is being pursued this year, although it is a great deal more flexible than last year's policy, and last year's policy was more flexible than that of the year before. I would certainly wish to see any future arrangements make it possible to go further towards correcting the distortions and inconveniences which have been developing over the last three years.
When my hon. Friend talks about a Socialist incomes policy, I think it has been shown by the historical experience of Europe in recent years that only social democratic Governments can rely on the degree of support from trade union movements which is necessary to produce the sort of moderation in pay settlements that we have seen in this country, Scandinavia, Austria and West Germany.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Chancellor aware that the patriotism and common sense of the trade union movement have been met with threats of a further stage 4 from him? The whole subject is clouded in mystery and double talk, and the obfuscation is similar to certain hon. Members who seem to have spent the night in the "No" Lobby. Will he come clean and tell the House whether there will be a statutory incomes policy in stage 4 or not?

Mr. Healey: There certainly will not be a statutory incomes policy next year. That has repeatedly been made clear by myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is too early to say what sort of arrangement is likely to be reached, but it does not lie in the mouth of the hon. Gentleman to talk about mystery

and double talk with regard to incomes policy from this side of the House.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman studies what has been said in recent weeks by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), by his right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. If he can make any sense of the totally contradictory statements which they have made in public on this matter in recent times I should be grateful if he would send me the answer on a postcard.

Mr. Radice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members think that it is a good thing that he is discussing the future of pay policy now rather than waiting until later?

Mr. Healey: I am aware of that factor. Nobody who has lived through the last three and a half years—or, indeed, the last 15 or 20 years—can doubt that the maintenance of a level of earnings increases which is close to the level of increase in productivity is a precondition of keeping inflation at levels that will allow us to maintain high employment. Nobody with whom I have discussed the subject denies that; certainly nobody in the trade union movement denies it. How one seeks to create a framework of collective bargaining to ensure this outcome is a question on which this Government have made some progress in the last three years. I hope that we can make further progress in the coming months.

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of contradictions. Is not the greatest contradiction of all that which lies between the right hon Gentleman's writings in the Socialist Commentary saying that there will be a stage 4 and a formal incomes policy for ever and the comments of the Prime Minister last week to the effect that we were now to have free collective bargaining? Should not the two right hon. Gentlemen get together, and will the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having spoken to the Prime Minister, please tell the House what his policy is to be?

Mr. Healey: The Prime Minister and I are in continuous and intimate contact on this matter. As for the contradiction which the hon. Gentleman appears


to detect between the interview I gave to the Socialist Commentary and the Prime Minister's interview on television, I detect no contradiction whatever in that respect. Possibly, if the hon. Gentleman were to borrow my spectacles or the Prime Minister's, he would see the matter more clearly.

Investment Income Surcharge

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of abolishing investment income surcharge for all taxpayers over the age of 65 years.

Mr. Denzil Davies: About £150 million for 1977–78.

Sir A. Meyer: In view of the relatively low cost of such a change, will the Minister show sympathy for the plight of elderly people whose savings are running out fast and who pray that they will die before their savings vanish altogether? Will he, in the next Budget, give high priority to a move in the direction suggested in my Question?

Mr. Davies: The Labour Government have since 1974 shown a high regard for the priority of looking after the elderly. We have managed to maintain in real terms the income of the elderly, taking inflation into account. The elderly have been treated extremely well if one compares that section of the community with other sections which have suffered from inflation.

Mr. Peter Rees: Does the Minister think it right to go on discriminating through the tax system between those who are privileged to retire with occupational pension schemes and those who have to live in retirement on income from savings?

Mr. Davies: The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of the Government discriminating in this way. I would point out that the principle of taxing earned income differently from unearned income has been accepted by both major parties for a long time. If the Opposition are saying that they do not want to persist with this distinction, they should make it clear.

Inflation

Mr. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average monthly rate of inflation since March 1974; and how this figure compares with the average monthly rate of inflation between July 1970 and February 1974.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): The average monthly rate of inflation between March 1974 and December 1977 was 1·36 per cent. This stands in a better relation to the performance of the previous Administration than theirs did to their predecessors.

Mr. Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer both parts of my Question, or is he too ashamed to do so?

Mr. Barnett: I thought that the answer was a good one, rather better than the Question.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Are my right hon. Friend and his colleagues proud of the fact that the situation has so improved compared with the statement by the Governor of the Bank of England in evidence to a Select Committee of the House in 1973 that we were on the edge of a financal abyss? Now that there has been a tremendous improvement in our financial affairs under the Labour Government, will they put their minds to economic matters and give high priority to unemployment? Will they bear this matter particularly in mind when considering the Budget proposals?

Mr. Barnett: I assure my hon. Friend that we have these things in mind, and we hope to be able to do something about the situation in the Budget.

Mr. Tapsell: Is it not a fact that in the past 45 months of Labour misrule prices have increased by 83 per cent. and the pound which the Labour Government inherited from their Conservative predecessors is now worth only 55p? Is this why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is about to reduce the size of the pound note to the former size of the old ten-shilling note?

Mr. Barnett: The answer to that supplementary question should probably be something on the lines of "Ugh!", though I do not know how that will appear in Hansard. The hon. Gentleman


will be aware that the reasons for the growth in inflation in the last four years, certainly in respect of the early period, was due almost entirely to the policies pursued by the Conservative Government. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is pleased that the rate of inflation is now coming down, although he has noted that, because of the policies that were pursued by his right hon. and hon. Friends, food prices will not be coming down as fast as hoped.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is still satisfied with the current rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I shall not be satisfied until we get inflation down to the level of our international competitors and keep it there.

Mr. Skinner: In the course of the past two or three years, have not the Treasury and the Government generally been attempting to control inflation by restricting wages and at the same time turning a blind eye to the menace of the dole queue which has been ever-growing on our doorstep? Is it not now time, in what is supposed to be electoral year—perhaps come one—to start feeding the economy and let the trade union leaders do the job they were supposed to do, which is to fight for better wages and conditions and increase consumer purchasing power? If we do that, there is just a chance that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will get back on to the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Barnett: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's kindly consideration of my position in the House. If we advocated the kind of policies he suggests, it would be utterly disastrous for my chances of remaining here, and perhaps even of his remaining where he is.

Mr. Budgen: Would not the Chief Secretary agree that a formal wages policy imposed upon the private sector is either statutory or is unlawful, arbitrary and despotic?

Mr. Barnett: The strict answer to that question is "No, Sir". I know the hon. Gentleman's views—I am not so sure about the views of the Opposition Front Bench—about incomes policy. I have said recently that any Government will

be concerned with incomes in the foreseeable future. This Government are concerned with levels of income. I hope that the Opposition are, but that is a little unclear.

Mr. Loyden: What does my right hon. Friend think will be the effect on inflation of the decision on the green pound and its implementation? How can he possibly think in terms of continuing the pay policy against the background of rising prices for the working people?

Mr. Barnett: Let us be clear. The responsibility for the 7½ per cent. devaluation of the green pound rests with the Opposition. On the subject of pay, I must tell my hon. Friend that it is an utter illusion to imagine that we could reduce either the level of inflation or the level of unemployment whilst allowing pay to rise to the level that some of my hon. Friends have in mind.

Mr. Tapsell: Since the Government have accepted the relationship between excessive public expenditure and the rate of inflation, may I ask whether their projection of a 2·2 per cent. increase in public expenditure every year until the early 1980s is dependent on the achievement of their optimistic forecast of a 3·5 per cent. annual increase in GDP?

Mr. Barnett: I assume that the hon. Gentleman has read the White Paper. We did not make a forecast of a 3·5 per cent. growth over the years until the 1980s. We said that those figures in the later years were very provisional and that we would be reviewing them in 1978 and in the many years that lie ahead for Labour Governments.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study his Department has made of the effect of value added tax on the boat-building industry in the last 12 months.

Mr. Denzil Davies: We have continued to monitor the effect of the higher rate of VAT on the boat-budding industry, and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has maintained close contacts with the trade associations concerned.

Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister accept that that non-answer does not take us


very much further? Will he recognise that the real decline in some of the areas connected with the domestic market of the boat-building industry stems from the differential in VAT, especially at the top rate of 25 per cent. Since some small boat builders are suffering from the differential in VAT, will he say what the Government intend to do about the situation?

Mr. Davies: I do not accept that argument. The reason why the boat-building industry, in common with other industries. has suffered in the last few years is mainly that, because living standards have not risen, people have less money to spend. According to a survey recently carried out by the boat-building industry, there are signs of an improvement and there is optimism for the future.

Exchange Control

Mr. Biffen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the recent liberalisation of sterling exchange control upon employment in the United Kingdom, overseas investment, and the £ sterling exchange rate, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. Among the adjustments which I announced on 26th October last, the liberalising of sterling borrowing by non-resident controlled manufacturing companies for their United Kingdom business has stimulated some interest. This could lead to additional industrial investment from overseas in the United Kingdom. The greater freedom for banks and insurance companies to retain foreign currency should help them to compete for business abroad and so assist invisible earnings. This may also bring benefit in the longer run to domestic employment. It is too early for any more detailed assessment of the impact.
The abolition of the 25 per cent requirement will mean about £200 million less inflow into the reserves during 1978 but will enable United Kingdom portfolios of foreign currency securities to be managed more effectively.

Mr. Biffen: If sterling continues to appreciate, will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to the opportunities and advantages which that situation will provide for a further liberalisation of exchange control?

Mr. Healey: I am keeping all aspects of the problem under review, but the hon. Gentlemant knows as well as I do that countries such as Japan, Switzerland and Germany, which have no outward exchange controls and which have imposed inward controls, nevertheless have seen their currencies appreciate just as fast as happened formerly. There is a tendency grossly to exaggerate the impact of what happens to exchange controls when there are movements in the exchange rate.

Mr. Gould: Does my right hon. Friend think that the disappointing and damaging trend in the trade balance in manufactured goods in the last three or four months, following the encouraging performance earlier in 1977, might conceivably have anything to do with the appreciation of the pound?

Mr. Healey: Not on the sort of calculations that my hon. Friend espouses. Those who believe that depreciation brings automatic benefits to the trade balance do not expect that benefit to accrue for at least two years after that process has taken place. If one examines the improvement in the volume of exports of manufactures, one sees that it pre-dates the depreciation of March 1976. On these matters, there is a tendency among economic theorists grossly to exaggerate and sometimes to mistake the impact of exchange rate movements on the flow of trade.

Mr. Hordern: Since the Chancellor is so confident about debt repayment and the fact that debt management is said to be under control, what justification can there be for having stricter foreign exchange controls for a creditor country with a large supply of North Sea oil for years to come when the countries to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have no such restrictions? Surely now is the time to continue a further lightening of foreign exchange controls.

Mr. Healey: We also have a very large burden of foreign debt to repay, and that is not the case with the other countries to which I referred. I warn Opposition Members to be cautious about supporting the propaganda drive from some sections for the abolition of exchange controls, because it was that same section of the financial community which


pressed for the introduction of competition and credit control, and the Government and the Bank of England have been wrestling with the consequences of that mistake for the past four years.

Mr. Jay: If the present problem is an inflow of foreign funds, rather than a further liberalising of exchange controls, would it not be better to have a further substantial cut in interest rates, which would benefit all parts of the economy?

Mr. Healey: Short-term interest rates have fallen substantially in the past 12 months and are now lower than they are in New York, but I do not believe that it is right to think that the inflows of foreign currency which we suffered or enjoyed, according to hon. Members' points of view, last autumn had very much to do with the level of interest rates. They were basically speculations on capital gains, and the fall in interest rates that we brought about at that time had no apparent effect on them.

Sir G. Howe: The Chancellor mentioned the pressure for relaxation from certain quarters of the financial community, but does he not recognise that those in industry, specifically the CBI, who are concerned with helping manufacturing industry and British exports are concerned about the impact of the value of the £ sterling on price competitiveness and that this is a factor that has to be taken into account? Is he aware that, unless he is prepared to make a relaxation of exchange controls when the opportunity presents itself, there is a grave danger that intervention, far from saving jobs, will destroy them?

Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must make up his mind whether he agrees or disagrees with the CBI over various matters. On most matters, such as incomes policy, it seems that he tends to disagree. In his question he was mixing up two different matters. He expressed his disquiet about the rise in the exchange rate, but this is welcomed by his monetarist friends. I should be interested to hear how he reconciles his views on monetarism with his views on the exchange rate.
The Association of British Chambers of Commerce takes the opposite view on the appreciation of the exchange rate.

I quoted its view in my speech during the last economic debate. Opposition Members should be more cautious in making wide generalisations about the effect of movements in one monetary or economic variable on all others. It is not as simple as the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes out.

Unemployment (Cost)

Mr. Madden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the total cost to his Department of unemployment over the last year.

Mr. Healey: I take it that my hon. Friend is interested in the total cost of unemployment to public funds. The estimated cost of social security benefits payable because of unemployment in the financial year 1977–8 is about £1,460 million. Special labour market measures are expected to cost some £400 million over the same period and to support the equivalent of 375,000 annual places. The most important other costs are the loss of tax revenue and national insurance contributions, for which it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate.

Mr. Madden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures that he has given represent a scandalous waste in human and economic terms? As the representative of a constituency with clothing interests, does he agree that the continuation of the temporary employment subsidy is crucially important to combat unemployment? Will he tell the Common Market Commission and others opposed to the continuation of the subsidy to take a running jump and that the Government intend to continue the subsidy in order to combat unemployment?

Mr. Healey: I take it from the last part of my hon. Friend's question that he does not think that this expenditure is a waste but would much rather that it were not necessary. We can be proud of the level of unemployment benefit that we pay and the measures that we have introduced to protect jobs. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be in a position to make an announcement in the near future about the use of further measures-of this nature.
It is true that some members of the Community have raised objections to


some aspects of the temporary employment subsidy, but I am confident that we shall be able to negotiate adjustments in the way in which we handle this problem that will enable us to protect as many jobs without creating the difficulties that some of our friends in the Community see.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Chancellor bear in mind not so much the cost to his Department, which is well able to afford it, as the cost to individual Scots, men and women, who are facing increased levels of unemployment because of the failure of United Kingdom economic policy in Scotland? The Government have given Scotland its highest unemployment level since 1939. Does not that make the Labour Party's slogan "Back to work with Labour" seem hollow, sickly and wizened?

Mr. Healey: I am deeply conscious of the impact in human as well as financial terms of the present levels of unemployment, but the House will know as well as I that the number of young men and women coming on to the labour market is increasing by 200,000 a year. Last year, employment in Britain increased by well over 100,000, although unemployment increased by almost as much. The employment measures to which reference has been made have done a great deal to soften the impact, and if the Government continue to develop their present policies we shall see a steady fall in the unemployment rate starting this year.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if one takes into account the loss of tax revenue, the tax rebates that are paid—the total level of which he refuses to specify—the loss of industrial production and the other benefits to which he has referred, the total cost of having 1½ million people unemployed throughout the year is £4,000 million? Is it not also worth recalling that he is the same fellow who told us that, if we had a £6 a week pay policy to reduce consumer purchasing power and another pay policy after that, unemployment would be reduced and none of these problems would arise? That is why we cannot afford another pay policy.

Mr. Healey: I do not think that that is a compliment to the overwhelming

majority in the trade union movement which has supported pay policies for the past two years and is supporting this year's policy. My hon. Friend's passionate devotion in these matters is fully appreciated, but he must not show disregard of the views of his fellow trade unionists who are supporting the pay policy, because they know that its contribution to the conquest of inflation is of vital importance to the conquest of unemployment.

Gross National Product and Public Expenditure

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase he anticipates in the gross national product over the next five years; and what percentage increase he estimates in defence expenditure and what percentage increase in other public expenditure.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase he anticipates in the gross national product over the next five years; and what percentage increase he estimates in arms expenditure and what increase in non-military spending.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase he anticipates in the gross national product over the next five years; and what percentage increase he estimates in arms expenditure and what increase in non-military spending.

Mr. Joel Barnett: The recent public expenditure White Paper does not make a forecast of increase in gross national product. It provides for volume increases between expenditure plans for 1977–78 and 1981–82 of 6·6 per cent. for total civil programmes and 5.3 per cent. for defence. Programmes for 1980–81 and 1981–82 will be reviewed in the 1978 Public Expenditure Survey.

Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend resist the constant demands from the Opposition that the Government should greatly increase defence spending while reducing other public expenditure? Does he agree that one of the problems that we have faced as a nation since 1945 is that we have been spending too high a proportion of our gross national product


on defence compared with our competitors in Germany and Japan, who have given priority to manufacturing industry? Will the Government now give priority to improving investment in the manufacturing sector?

Mr. Barnett: As my hon. Friend knows, that is our top priority. It remains our intention to bring defence expenditure down as a proportion of GDP, in line with our major NATO allies.

Mr. Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend respond to the proposals of the Vickers, BAC and Lucas Aerospace engineers that they should be employed on the expensive plant and machine tools that we are at present importing and on other non-military goods? Would not that be better for the British economy?

Mr. Barnett: I agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that I would rather see the workers to whom he refers working on something other than defence. But we also have a priority. We have to spend money on defence as well. Our commitment as a party and a Government is to reduce our defence expenditure as a percentage on GDP in due course, in line with that of our major NATO allies.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Chief Secretary aware that the public expenditure White Paper shows planned public expenditure for the coming year to be 8·2 per cent. above the outturn for public expenditure in the current year? How does he reconcile that with the 2·2 per cent. increase of which he told the Press? He would need a £3,000 million shortfall to reconcile it. Is that £3,000 million shortfall to be achieved deliberately, or is the 2·2 per cent. figure eyewash?

Mr. Barnett: No, it is true. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the White Paper. The 2·2 per cent. related to the plans in the last White Paper. What the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do is to compare like with unlike. He does not know any more than anybody else does what the outturn for 1978–79 will be. We made a comparison of the plans for 1978–79 with the previous plans, and the percentage that I gave then was absolutely correct.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Corbett: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 26th January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet, in addition to my duties in this House. I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I shall be the guest of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce at its annual dinner.

Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the anger of rail commuters who, having faced six increases in rail fares in two years, are now paying about 120 per cent. more for their rides to and from work? Will he remember that during this period earnings have increased by only about 30 per cent.? Will he urgently consider ways of aiding commuters, through tax relief or subsidy or a combination of both?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the Price Commission is investigating the present proposed increase, and I think that it is due to report in two or three weeks' time. Perhaps we had better see what it does. As for the relationship between increased prices and increased incomes, this is one of the basic reasons why we should continue to work to keep down inflation. I am glad to see that British Rail has not increased its fares since January 1977 [Interruption.] Well in general. I hope that it will not do so. [HON. MEMBERS: " January 1978, not 1977.] I know. That is 12 months. That is what I am saying. That is what the Price Commission is investigating. Of course, costs have to be met. If the Opposition are shouting about this, I wonder why they voted against the Second Reading of the Transport Bill when their action could have destroyed all subsidies to commuters.
The position of the commuter is very difficult. Having travelled as a commuter for many years, I can say that it seems that only the youngest and the fittest can survive. I hope that British Rail will turn its attention, during the campaign being run by the London Evening


Standard and other newspapers, to the conditions under which commuters have to travel to and from work every day. It seems to me to place a great strain on them.

Mr. Baker: Will the Prime Minister have time later today to look at the statement made by the Secretary of State for Energy this week when, speaking to a very receptive audience at the Institute of Oriental Studies, he said that public ownership was back on the agenda? Is it back on the Prime Minister's agenda?

The Prime Minister: I regret to say that I have not had the opportunity to study this latest script. However, I looked at the headings, which were "The Campaign for Jobs", "The Campaign for Better Public Services", "The Campaign against Fascism", "The Campaign for Internationalism", "The Campaign for Human Values" and "The Campaign for a Democratic and Socialist Perspective". Those headings seem to me to be admirable.

Mr. Park: When my right hon. Friend is in Birmingham tonight, will he bear in mind that when the Midlands are prosperous, so is the rest of the country? Will he have another look at the effects on the Midlands of the regional policy?

The Prime Minister: I shall be making some reference, in remarks that I hope to make tonight, to the important position occupied by the Midlands. Although I said that I was going to the dinner, I doubt whether I shall get there in time to eat anything. I suppose that I shall have to make a speech, and I shall refer to some of the points raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Freud: Will the Prime Minister consider the concern of local authorities and private individuals not on supplementary benefit who are victims of flood damage? Will he consider issuing a central Government statement of intent regarding aid to those people?

The Prime Minister: It would be better if that Question were put on the Order Paper. I believe, though I am subject to correction, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has today met local authorities to discuss the matter. I suggest that a detailed Question should be tabled.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUC

Mr. Robinson: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) on 8th November.

Mr. Robinson: When my right hon. Friend does meet the TUC, will he bear in mind what it told my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, when it called for a massive expansionary economic package? As all Governments seem bound to err in the matter of economic policy, can my right hon. Friend assure us that if there is any erring to be done in the forthcoming Budget he will err this time on the side of the TUC and not on the side of the IMF?

The Prime Minister: I hope that there will be no error at all, although I am bound to say, having been in the House for 32 years, that it would be the first time any Government had got it right exactly. As for the proposed expansion, I think there is general acceptance that we can look forward—because of the progress that has been made on inflation as a result of the nation's efforts—to a substantial growth during the next 12 months compared with what we have had in recent years. The Government will adjust their financial policies accordingly.

Mr. Dykes: Will the Prime Minister discuss with the TUC the comments made today by Sir John Methven, who said that, while the excessively close relationship of the Government to the unions might have produced some short-term gains in the recent past, the continuation of that excessively close relationship would do long-term damage to the British economy?

The Prime Minister: I would no more think of discussing that with the TUC when I next meet it than I would expect the Leader of the Opposition to discuss with the CBI the close relationship that exists between it and the Tory Party.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that recently he, together with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other


Treasury Ministers, has been claiming that the Government have a right to act as wage negotiators directly across the table with trade union representatives? Is not this tendency in direct contradiction to the understanding of the public sector which many of us had that within a mixed economy the Government should delegate authority to those who represent joint councils and boards of nationalised industries, giving them total freedom to negotiate freely wage bargains with those representing workers employed in the public sector?

The Prime Minister: Clearly, the Government are bound to take a view on these matters when public employees of one kind or another form such a large proportion of the national economy. There is no escape from that, whatever might be the ideal. I do not say that we shall move fully into this position, but, within the limits and guidelines that any successive Governments may lay down, of course people are free to negotiate.

Mr. Tebbit: As the Prime Minister is not meeting the TUC too often these days, will he take some of the time that he gains thereby to improve the quality of his briefing for Prime Minister's Questions, because he is giving us some unease? Is he aware that we thought he did not read his brief properly, and that the fact that he said he had read only the headings of the speech of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy underlines that? Will he undertake to read that speech before he returns here next Tuesday, and tell us whether nationalisation is on his agenda as well as the Secretary of State's?

The Prime Minister: it is my constant desire to give unease to the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that I am so successful. As regards my reading matter over the weekend, I shall give consideration to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Flannery: May we assume that when my right hon. Friend meets the TUC the matter of unemployment and how to curb it will be at the very top of the agenda? Can he assure us that he regularly discusses with such bodies at least some partial reflation to put some of the unemployed back where they belong—back in work?

The Prime Minister: This is a constant concern not only to the Government but

to the whole House, and, indeed, to the country. There will be a debate on the matter on Monday, on a Supply Day, when it will be a subject properly chosen by the Opposition. The Government will then be able to say more about their proposals and plans. I can assure my hon. Friend that as long as it remains at the present level, both internationally and nationally, we shall do our best to attack this great problem.

Mr. Michael Latham: As the TUC did not want stage 3 and certainly does not want stage 4, is the Prime Minister enthusiastic about his Treasury Ministers going around the country giving indications that perhaps there should be a stage 4?

The Prime Minister: I am always enthusiastic about the Treasury Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABLED PERSONS (MOBILITY)

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Social Services over mobility assistance for disabled people in or seeking employment.

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Manpower Services Commission's scheme for the travel to work of disabled people looks good on paper but it is totally ineffective? Will he give an undertaking that the scheme will be applied properly so that substantial numbers of disabled people shall not be denied the right to work because of lack of transport facilities?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of my hon. Friend's continued interest in this subject. I have been into the matter in view of his Question: I was surprised how few people had taken up the benefits of the scheme. It seems to me to be rather awkward and perhaps difficult to understand. I have asked my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Social Services—indeed, they were doing this already—to consider whether some improvements could be made and to publish new proposals in the near future.

Mr. Hannam: Is the Prime Minister aware that unemployment among disabled people is distressingly high and is caused mainly by the failure of the fares-to-work scheme to operate properly? If he is unable to achieve co-ordination among some members of this Cabinet, will he atleast see that there is co-ordination between these two very important Ministers?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it is lack of co-ordination that has resulted in failure to take up the benefits. I think that the scheme has some basic difficulties. The new organisation, Mot-ability, will help in these matters. I have read its pamphlet on the subject. But the Government themselves must take new steps.

Mr. Ashley: As the main employment problem of disabled workers arises from the fact that thousands of employers are flouting their legal obligation to employ 3 per cent., why are Ministers so coy and reticent about prosecuting those employers? Is it because most Government Departments are also failing to employ their 3 per cent. quota and, therefore, Ministers are just as culpable as those reactionary employers?

The Prime Minister: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to what my hon. Friend says, and I shall ask the Civil Service Department to go into the matter of the Civil Service and see what justification there is for these charges.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26th January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett).

Mr. Brotherton: In view of the good news coming from Salisbury, Rhodesia, today, can the Prime Minister find time to talk to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary about the need for the right hon. Gentleman to do his best to help secure a solution to the Rhodesian problem? Will he point out to the right hon.

Gentleman that the company of moderates is much to be preferred to that of murderers?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made yesterday a series of replies on this matter which I thought met with considerable satisfaction in the House. It would indeed be very gratifying if after all these years Mr. Smith were to be adopting some of the Six Principles laid down first by the Opposition, when they were in Government and then accepted by us when we became the Government. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I should like to see some details and see what will happen.

Mr. Noble: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is continuing concern about the fact that we have not yet had a statement on temporary employment subsidy? The earlier remark of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a statement might be made soon, indicating adjustments, will continue to cause concern unless the scheme announced is at least as good as the present one.

The Prime Minister: I have regularly answered questions about this subject, and the answer today is no different. The Government are aware of the concern about these matters. We must undertake negotiations on them. These negotiations are actively in train. As I have said on previous occasions, we shall do our best to make sure that the scheme—whether the old scheme, a new scheme or a modified version of the old scheme—meets the needs of the situation.

Mr. George Gardiner: During the course of the day, the Prime Minister must have had some discussions on what happened in the House last night when his right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) and the Scottish National Party Members for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) and Banff (Mr. Watt) appeared to be lingering in the Division Lobby, with the possible effect of denying the Committee a vote on a matter upon which it clearly wished to vote. Does the right hon. Gentleman condone that practice?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will wait for about half a


minute, he will find that he will get a statement from my right hon. Friend the Lord President.

Mrs. Hayman: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with colleagues today the threatened further increase in school meal charges? Is he aware of the grave concern that such an increase could seriously damage the Government's policy of family support?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we have constantly to take these matters into review. I can promise my hon. Friend and others who are interested that this matter has come to my attention in particular, and that we shall be considering it very carefully before the Budget Statement is made.

Mr. John Davies: I revert to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton). Does the Prime Minister realise that the answers given yesterday by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs did not give satisfaction in the House? May I say that the Prime Minister would do very well to employ some of his day convincing his right hon. Friend of the need to help towards a peaceful settlement in Rhodesia and not to hinder it?

The Prime Minister: That is an unworthy charge to be made. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear."] If Mr. Smith had picked up 10 years ago the ideas and propositions that were then being put forward by the Government of which the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) was later a member, there would not be this controversy today. It does not lie with the right hon. Gentleman or with his colleagues to defend Mr. Smith on these matters.

SCOTLAND BILL (DIVISION)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Last evening, I said that if there had been any improper delay in deciding the Division on one of the votes, it could not be condoned by the House and would be regarded as most reprehensible.
I later conducted immediate inquiries among Members on this side of the House who had apparently been engaged in an altercation in the Lobby about a subsequent Division. I think this discussion was improperly prolonged and could have affected the timing of the next vote, although in the event it did not.
I apologise to the House that this should have occurred, and I trust it will not happen again.

Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before I put questions to the Lord President, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you whether you have received reports about what occurred last night and whether you have any observations to make upon the situation that developed?

Mr. Speaker: I did this morning call for a report of what happened last night. I say at once that there is no appeal to me in respect of any actions by the occupant of the Chair in Committee, and nothing that I now say should be taken as indicating that there is such a right.
However, as Speaker I am concerned with all questions relating to the general conduct of Members in the House and in the Lobbies. For that reason I asked the Serjeant at Arms this morning, and the Clerks who were on duty in the Division Lobby, to give me a report of what happened. The report that I have received indicates that there were about five hon. Members who were in the Lobby at the time that the Serjeant at Arms entered, and that it was not apparent that they had any intention of leaving.
The Lord President has made it clear in his statement that he confirms that report and that the discussion went on too long. These facts were reported to the Chairman in Committee at the time, and there is no doubt in my mind that the action taken by him in ordering the Tellers to return immediately to the Table was correctly taken.
I add that whether or not the hon. Members who were left in the Lobby were counted, it would not have made any difference to the result of the Division.
In looking for precedents this morning—[Interruption.] This is not a light matter. I found that action of a similar nature to that taken by the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means was taken by my predecessor, Mr. Speaker Whitley, in 1926, when he used the following words:
My own action in summoning the Tellers to the Table was to deal with a new emergency. I shall always think it right to use my powers in this Chair to deal with events that may not be specifically provided for in the Standing Order."—[Official Report, 14th April 1926; Vol. 194 c. 431.]
I have two observations to make to the House. First, I am entirely convinced that the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, in very difficult circumstances, maintained the highest traditions that the House expects of the occupant of the Chair. Secondly, it is a grave abuse of our parliamentary proceedings for any hon. Member to delay in the Division Lobby in such a way that a further vote on business controlled by a timetable motion could be prevented.
It would have been open to the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means to name any hon. Member who in his view was obstructing the Division, but had he done so he would have prevented the House having the opportunity for the further Division. Therefore, in my opinion the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means followed the wisest course open to him.
I strongly deprecate any attempt to impede the democratic processes by which we work in this House.

Mr. Pym: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does the report of the Serjeant at Arms identify the hon. Members concerned?

Mr. Speaker: If the House wishes it, I shall have the report of the Serjeant at Arms to me inserted in Hansard.

Hon. Members: Yes.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously, the Serjeant at Arms identified the names.

Mr. Pym: After the Lord President's forthcoming statement last night, I think that his statement today will be received with disappointment. I describe it as half admission and half excuse. The right hon. Gentleman refers to a discussion that was improperly prolonged and could have affected the timing of the next vote, although in the event, it did not. I think that some hon. Members will feel that that is a less than frank description. Had it not been for the proper action of the Chair, the deliberate attempt to prevent the next vote from taking place would have been successful.
In view of the fact that three Ministers were involved, as is widely believed to be the case, and understood to be so in the House, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the Government's view of the Government's responsibility for this completely improper incident? The right hon. Gentleman's statement refers to Members, but in fact Ministers were involved. In that circumstance, I think that the House would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what the Government propose to do about it.

Mr. Foot: My statement today was not intended in any sense to detract from what I said yesterday on the spur of the moment. I intended my statement today to be what I believe it to be—namely, a full, clear and frank apology to the House for what occurred. I believe that it is in the tradition of the House that such statements are usually accepted.
It is the case that some Ministers were involved, but I do not believe that that alters or detracts in any sense from the apology that I have given to the House. If I may say so, with respect, I believe that the House owes a great debt to the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means for the way in which he dealt with the matter. If I had been able to express that feeling last night, I should have done so, but I express it now.
I suggest that the statement I have made fully accords with the way in which these matters have been dealt with previously. I repeat, I apologise to the House for the fact that this occurred. We shall take every possible step to ensure that it is not repeated.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should think that the House would be ready to move on to the next statement.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While not challenging your decision, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may say that there are many of us on the Labour Benches who would like to make absolutely clear that we accept the Lord President's statement, that we feel that it is absolutely correct, and that we believe that he had absolutely nothing to do with what happened last night. The House ought to accept it. Opposition Members should be more generous than they have been about this matter.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to associate myself with the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that the Lord President has acted fairly. However, will the Lord President consider referring to the Procedure Committee the question of a time limit on Members remaining in the Lobby after the doors are locked? I should like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I happen to know that there were Scottish National Party Members in the Lobby concerned, and I think that it would be desirable for the House as a whole—indeed, I think that it is a right of the House—to know the names of the Members who were involved.

Mr. Speaker: I indicated earlier that I was prepared to put into Hansard for today the report that I had from the Serjeant at Arms. I think that that will meet the wishes of both sides of the House.
We have had a very full statement. I hope that hon. Members will not prolong this matter unduly.

Mr. David Steel: As the Leader of the House has made it clear, both last night and today, that he regards what happened as improper and reprehensible, and as he has conveyed an apology to the House, surely we ought to accept that and leave the matter at that.
The possible effect of what happened last night would not only have been to prevent a vote but, as I pointed out to those concerned in the Lobby at the time, to prevent my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) from making his speech in

support of his constituency. While it is quite possible that my right hon. Friend, at the end of the day, received more support as a result of not making his speech, it is none the less inexcusable. The end result will be that the matter concerned, which my right hon. Friend has been trying to raise several times, will now have to be discussed on Report.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you reflect upon whether you ought to institute the precedent of publishing the Serjeant at Arms's reports to yourself? If the Opposition or anyone else in the House had come to you to complain about any Division last night, would not the simple procedure be, either on Report or elsewhere, to hold it again?

Mr. Speaker: I gave considerable thought to this matter before I made that statement, but I believe that the House has the right to the information.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is one aspect of this matter that is as yet unclear. If the members of the Government who obstructed the business of the House last night were acting on the instructions of the Government, it is quite proper for the Leader of the House to apologise on their behalf. But if the Deputy Chief Whip and others obstructed the proceedings of the House as private Members and not on the instructions of the Government, the Leader of the House is not in a position to apologise on their behalf. Only they can do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Watt: As one of those who were principally involved last night—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I really cannot understand the excitement that is being engendered. The Whips of the SNP were engaged in prolonged discussion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—with the Government Whips. No Ministers were involved. [Interruption.] Perhaps I may tell the House that had it been our intention deliberately to prolong proceedings, my hon. Friends on the SNP Bench would have done it in an orthodox manner—[Laughter.]—by raising points of order until the time limit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It was because—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have two things to say. First, I think that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) has helped the House enough by now and, second, I would esteem it a favour if he would now make his explanatory statement as brief as possible.

Mr. Watt: I shall certainly make it as brief as possible, if I am allowed to do so, Mr. Speaker. Surely the fact that I did not use that method indicates to the House most sincerely that SNP Members had no intention whatsoever of unduly prolonging the proceedings.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough for one day.

Following is the report:

Dear Mr. Speaker,

In case the matter is raised later on today, I think I should report that during a Division on the Scotland Bill at approximately 10.50 p.m. last night the first Deputy Chairman instructed me to find out what was happening in the "No" Lobby. I accordingly entered the "No" Lobby and found some five Honourable Members there. I explained that I had been sent to find out what was happening and I asked them if they were going to vote. I gathered that they were still in the process of discussing how they would vote in the next Division. I therefore reported to the Chair that "there are approximately five Honourable Members still in the 'No' Lobby". The Tellers came in as soon as the first Deputy Chairman had instructed them to bring the figures to the Chair.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Thorne,

Serjeant at Arms.

The Right Hon. George Thomas, MP,

Speaker,

House of Commons.

Dear Mr. Speaker,

Further to my note of this morning about last night's happenings in the "No" Lobby, the five Members—should you require to know their names—were as follows:
Mr. Dormand
Mr. Walter Harrison
Mr. Douglas Henderson
Mr Watt
and to the best of my recollection Mr. Stallard. I do not know if any of them had passed the Tellers either before I spoke to them or while I was making my report to the Chair.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Thorne,

Serjeant at Arms.

The Right Hon. George Thomas, MP,

Speaker,

House of Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: Business statement—the Lord President.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:—

MONDAY 30TH JANUARY—Supply [5th Allotted Day): a debate on employment on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Motion on EEC Documents Com (72)225, R/2113/73 and R/1966/77 on excise duty harmonisation.

TUESDAY 31ST JANUARY—Progress in Committee on the Scotland Bill.

WEDNESDAY 1ST FEBRUARY—Completion of consideration in Committee on the Scotland Bill.

Motion relating to the Community Drivers' Hours Rules (Temporary Modifications) Regulations.

THURSDAY 2ND FEBRUARY—Progress in Committee on the European Assembly Elections Bill.

FRIDAY 3RD FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 6TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock. Afterwards, Second Reading of the Inner Urban Areas Bill.

Mrs. Thatcher: I should like to refer to the business for Monday 6th February. It seems very unsatisfactory that a Bill as important as the Inner Urban Areas Bill should come on at 7 o'clock. Could the business not be rearranged so that it comes on as the first Order of the Day on another day?

Mr. Foot: I certainly accept what the right hon. Lady says about the importance of the Bill. I shall see whether there is any possibility of rearranging matters so that it would come on at an earlier time on another day, but I cannot give an absolute promise about that, because it depends on the pressures and the occasions for other business. I shall see whether we can make an adjustment next Thursday, but I cannot make an absolute promise.

Mr. Abse: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the Early-Day motion in my name and those of 120 other hon. Members on both sides of the House urging that the Windscale report be published and that the House should have an opportunity to debate the report before a decision is made? Since the Department has made it abundantly clear that it is considering whether the procedure in existence may debar the Minister from participating in any debate because of his acclaimed quasi-judicial capacity, and since the report has been received by the Minister today, may we have an assurance that the Leader of the House will require the Minister to make a statement next week? Does he not agree that a matter which affects nuclear proliferation, our national security and foreign policy should be decided by the whole House and not be confined to a judge and a Minister?
[That this House calls on the Secretary of State for the Environment to publish the inspector's report on the Windscale Inquiry so that the issues may be debated in this House before any Ministerial decision is taken.]

Mr. Foot: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the supreme importance of this subject. My right hon. Friend received the report only today. It is therefore rather early to consider whether he will be making a statement next week. I shall take into account all the considerations that my hon. Friend has put to me.

Mr. Cormack: Are we likely to have the Budget Statement before or after Easter?

Mr. Foot: I cannot give a date yet, but I shall do so as soon as I can.

Mr. Sandelson: May we have an assurance that we shall have an early debate on foreign affairs?

Mr. Foot: There is no opportunity for an early debate but some aspects of foreign affairs will be raised on different occasions. I cannot at present give a promise of a debate.

Mr. Crouch: Does the Lord President of the Council recollect that last night I implied some criticism of him which I never completed? I fully accept the com-

plete and absolute apology that he has given this afternoon. The reason that I raised the matter last night was that there has been a growing feeling that the Lord President is more detached from this House as a democrat than he used to be. May I hope that he will put in longer appearances in the House than he has done of late when constitutional Bills are being discussed? That would greatly help the House.

Mr. Foot: I thank the hon. Member for his early remarks. As for being detached from the House, I can hardly ever get away from the place. I do not regard his description as a proper description. I seek to attend debates as well as attending to all my other business. The hon. Member and others may criticise my views, but I can assure them that the views that I held on the Back Benches are the same as those that I hold now.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware of Early-Day Motion No. 189, which is signed by hon. Members from both sides of the House and which calls for the annulment of the Medicines (Prescription Only) Order 1977, and Early-Day Motion No. 190, which calls attention to Clause 3(1)(d) of that order because it would place restraints on the rights of osteopaths? May we have an assurance that we shall have time for a debate, because the order is subject to the negative procedure? If we do not have time to debate it, the order will come into force on 5th February. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have already had trouble over a similar order?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Medicines (Prescription Only) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 2127), dated 20th December 1977, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th January, be annulled.]
[That this House takes note of the Medicines (Prescription Only) Order 1977, but declines to approve the provision contained in Clause 3(1)(d), because it would place an undesirable restraint on the present rights of unorthodox practitioners.]

Mr. Foot: I thought that we had disposed of the trouble over the previous order.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: We have, but now there is trouble over this order.

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a debate before 5th February but there are other ways of raising the issue. I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Can the Leader of the House give any indication of his plans to repair the damage done last night to the Scotland Bill? Will he take note that the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) concerning a 40 per cent. majority was supported by only 27 per cent. of hon. Members?

Mr. Foot: I certainly recognise that the amendments that were carried in the Committee yesterday were serious amendments and that they make serious infringements in parts of the Bill. The Government are taking stock of the situation in the light of these amendments and we shall come forward on Report with our own proposals to deal with the matter.

Miss Joan Lestor: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that following the executions in Bermuda the House was promised a statement about the application of capital punishment in dependent territories, associated States and colonies? In view of the fact that a man is under sentence of death in the Virgin Islands, can the Leader of the House promise a statement on this matter?

Mr. Foot: I cannot give a date for a statement, but in the light of what my hon. Friend has said I shall inquire into the matter and see what can be arranged. The general question would require a general statement, but I shall inquire into the specific case.

Mr. Percival: Does the Leader of the House recall that on Wednesday last week, one and a half hours were allocated for the discussion of some important EEC documents on the harmonisation of the grounds of jurisdiction and that, because of bungling, the Government's motion was out of order? Does he recall that the debate was stopped when this was called to the attention of the Chair and we did not even get the one and a half hours that we should have had? Does the right hon. Gentleman recog-

nise the importance of these documents being properly debated in the House? May we have an assurance that they will be debated and can he tell us when that will be?

Mr. Foot: I certainly accept what the hon. and learned Member says about the importance of getting these debates in proper order. In the case of the documents mentioned, I have already indicated that there will be a debate to make up for that which was lost on that occasion.
There was another debate, in which the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) took part, when the motion was not in a form which enabled all the documents to be debated. There are to be further arrangements for a debate to take place on the documents which could not be debated because of the form of the motion.
I accept that there have been some difficulties in arranging these debates. But the House is dealing with a new situation in this respect. All these debates are attended by those who are specially interested in them. The Scrutiny Committee has paid a tribute to the growing and better attention which the Government have paid to these matters. I acknowledge that we still have a long way to go before the system is improved to the point that mistakes are prevented. We are seeking to overcome the problem and, with the co-operation of the House, we shall succeed.

Mr. Loyden: Since the corporate plan for British Leyland will shortly be submitted to the National Enterprise Board and then to the Minister, will my right hon. Friend arrange for an urgent statement and a debate on the matter?

Mr. Foot: This is a matter of major industrial consequence for the areas concerned and the whole country. Therefore, there will be a statement in the House. We shall have to see what is the best form for a debate. I accept the importance of a statement.

Mr. Graham Page: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the memoranda at the end of the Order Paper which informs us that certain Statutory Instruments will be going to Standing Committees next week? Is


the Leader of the House aware that two of them have not been considered by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which is awaiting evidence from the Department? Is he aware that on several occasions recently orders have had to be withdrawn and redrafted when this has happened? Will he see that these Statutory Instruments do not go before the Standing Committees until the Select Committee reports have been received?

Mr. Foot: I shall certainly look into the matter that the right hon. Gentleman has raised and see whether we can correct it along the lines that he has suggested, although until I have looked at it I cannot be sure of the reply.

Mr. Spearing: Will my right hon. Friend give the House the opportunity to debate the report of the Select Committee on Overseas Development on coordination in Whitehall immediately the Government's response is made? Will he note that many Members of the Committee who heard my right hon. Friend the Minister yesterday do not agree with the headline in The Times which says that she snubbed the Committee but that she was as helpful as she could have been in the circumstances?

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. The exact time at which such a debate should take place is not for me to say now. I may be able to say that at some period hence. I am glad to hear that the one thing that everyone associated with that Committee was unanimous about was that the report in The Times was incorrect.

Mr. Forman: Many Conservative Members share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) about the decision which the Secretary of State for the Environment will have to make as a result of the Windscale inquiry. Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee to look at this matter with a view to providing time for a full debate before the Secretary of State takes his decision?

Mr. Foot: I will give no guarantees about a debate. I will guarantee, however, to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on

the matter. It was he who set up the inquiry and he is well aware of the great significance of the subject. I undertake to make representations along the lines of those put to me by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman).

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend not agree, in view of the vital importance of this inquiry and its wide ramifications, that the House is entitled to an absolute assurance that it will be able to debate this matter before the Government come to any decision?

Mr. Foot: The time at which debates take place involves other matters, but I accept what my hon. Friend said. However, if we were always to agree that there should be debates before Governments made responses to particular reports, that could lead to further difficulties. I acknowledge to my hon. Friend, as I have acknowledged before, the great importance of this subject. I shall look at it to see the best way in which the House can deal with the matter.

Mr. Ridley: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to get the Prime Minister to make a statement about what happens, under the Government's standard of conduct in public life, after one senior Minister has issued a blistering reprimand to another in public?

Mr. Norman Atkinson: My right hon. Friend's answers on Windscale are not good enough. My right hon. Friend has a tremendous reputation of being a radical in these matters. Will he revert to his former self and apply some radicalism to them? It is not good enough to say that we are to have a statement next week. Will he give an assurance—or indicate the rules that prevent him from giving an assurance—that before any statement is made by the Government the House will have an opportunity of debating in detail the issues which have been concluded at the inquiry?

Mr. Foot: I did not say that there would necessarily be a statement on the subject next week. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment received the report only today, and, given the great significance of the subject, it is obviously right that he should have proper time to consider it. I am not


making any other undertaking whether and when a debate would best take place.
I promise my hon. Friend—and this is in full accord with my views on the rights of Back Benchers—that I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the representations that have been made to me. We will have discussions about how best we may proceed to debate the matter in the House and have proper consideration of this subject of supreme importance.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide an urgent debate to discuss the attacks by terrorists operating from the border areas of the Irish Republic upon Northern Ireland which have resulted in grave injury and death for members of the Security Forces and civilians there, and a recent statement by the police that the IRA has imported new powerful machine guns from the United States via the Irish Republic?

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a debate on the subject. That is no doubt a matter on which the hon. Member could put down a Question if he wished.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us are most encouraged that he is seized of the full importance and significance of the report on Windscale? In his representations to the Secretary of State for the Environment will he convey the fact that many of us who are well aware of how hard our right hon. Friend fought to get a public inquiry on this issue will be very sorry if the final decisions on the inquiry are taken without the House of Commons having the opportunity to make its voice heard? Nothing brings this House into greater disrespect than a situation in which we are seen to be unable to influence a matter of great concern and great anxiety to a large number of people outside this House.

Mr. Foot: I agree that if that occurs it can bring the House into disrespect, but in many cases there is much more influence on the House, and on the Government and on Ministers, than people understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Like last night?"] Last night is not the best example, but when some of my hon. Friends write books about Cabinet dictation I wonder where they get their facts from. My hon. Friend is right when he says that no citizen of this country and

no Member of the Government or of the House has shown a greater awareness of the significance of the issues of Windscale than has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who set up the inquiry. I believe that the House can have full confidence that he will deal with the matter in the best way possible. However, the House wishes to participate in that decision, and I shall see that he understands that, although I think that he may well understand it already.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In view of the critical stage of fisheries negotiations in Europe and the fact that any final settlement or otherwise will have to be endorsed by this House, will the Leader of the House provide in Government time an opportunity for hon. Members to express their views on this serious matter before a conclusion is reached?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member should await the statement which is to be made very soon by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I fully understand the desire of the House to express its view on these matters. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is also fully aware of the rights and feelings of the House on the subject.

Mr. Skinner: In the event of the payroll vote entering the Chamber at 7 o'clock tonight or thereabouts—as it entered the party meeting at 7 o'clock on Tuesday night—and, aided and abetted by the European party on the Opposition Benches, led by the Leader of the Opposition—although she may not be there, since she has a heavy cold; and that is what comes of kissing people in Petticoat Lane—carrying the day for the Government on the guillotine, what legistion does my right hon. Friend have ready to put in place of the guillotined Bill?

Mr. Foot: It is not a question of putting something in place of the guillotined Bill. There are a large number of other measures with which the Government wish to proceed in addition to those already going through the House. I have referred to some of them in my statement today—such as the Bill on the inner cities. There are other important measures coming forward. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated today that a measure was being prepared


by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment dealing with some aspects of the very matters that are very often raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). There is also the question of the steel industry where important matters may have to be dealt with in this way. There are very important measures to be brought before the House in the interests of citizens throughout the country.
After that short homily, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to vote with us tonight.

Mr. Michael Latham: May I ask the Leader of the House about business next Tuesday and Wednesday? Is it not increasingly obvious that very few hon. Members believe that the Scotland Bill will pass into law? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not save two days by dropping it now?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member should study the facts about the passage of this Bill both on Second Reading and subsequently. The Government believe that it should be placed on the statute book. We are determined to proceed with it. We believe that if amendments cause serious injury to the real purpose of the Bill, they will have to be looked at afresh. But those issues must be brought back to the House on Report.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Is my right hon. Friend aware of mounting dissatisfaction among hon. Members' secretaries about their pay and conditions, and will he undertake that we shall be able to debate that in the near future?

Mr. Foot: I have already given an undertaking, but I give it again. It is that before the beginning of the financial year it will be necessary to have this in proper form in order for the scheme to start. I will bring it before the House so that we can vote on it and get it into operation before the end of the financial year.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the three hon. Gentlemen who rose, but I hope that they will be brief.

Sir Bernard Braine: I agree that the headline in The Times concerning the evidence given yesterday by the Minister

of State for Overseas Development to the Select Committee was quite misleading. The Minister is always courteous and forthcoming to the Select Committee. Nevertheless, does the Leader of the House agree that it is a serious matter when a Select Committee is told that it cannot be given information that is vital to its inquiries because of a convention in Whitehall drawn up by civil servants, particularly when that is confirmed by Ministers? As this is a matter that strikes at the root of parliamentary control over the Executive, may we expect an early statement from the Government?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has illustrated the argument that I have put forward on previous occasions. If there is to be a change in the procedures that now govern the relationship between the Executive and the Select Committee and Members of Parliament and the Select Committee—that is an important aspect—it should be done generally. That is why the matter is being looked at by the Select Committee on Procedure. I am sure that is the proper way to proceed. In the meantime, it is incorrect to say that the rules governing this matter are drawn up by civil servants. That is not so. Ministers have to accept responsibility.

Mr. Marten: As a result of last night's goings on and now that the Opposition have been forewarned of what the Government can try to get up to under a guillotine—as a result, it is unlikely that many Opposition Members will support the guillotine motion tonight—if today's motion is defeated, shall we nevertheless go on with the Bill next Thursday?

Mr. Foot: We shall have to wait and see.

Mr. Freud: Will the Leader of the House instigate a debate on the flood damage of 11th January. It is now 14 days since that flood, and 34 Members of Parliament whose constituencies were involved are awaiting a declaration of intent from the Government, but none has come. In the meantime, local authorities, industry and private individuals, who are not beneficiaries of supplementary benefit, have been shuttled from the Department of Trade to the Department of Industry and, under Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972, to the


Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a debate on that subject, although I fully accept the importance of the matter. If there is any way in which I can help to sort out some of the difficulties specified by the hon. Gentleman, I shall be glad to try to assist. However, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and others have made representations to the Ministers concerned. I shall consult the Ministers primarily concerned to ascertain the specific difficulties that the hon. Gentleman and others have raised to see whether they can be overcome.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE MINISTERS)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): I beg leave to make a statement about the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels on 23rd-24th January on agriculture at which I represented the United Kingdom.
The main issue before the Council was the Commission's proposals for common prices in 1978–79. I reiterated my view that common price increases should be kept to a minimum and that for products in structural surplus there was no case for any price increase at all.
Following the vote of this House on 23rd January, I requested the Council to agree to amend the Commission's proposal to devalue the green pound so as to increase the amount of the devaluation from 5 per cent. to 7½ per cent. The Council agreed, subject to a qualification that I shall mention later, to this revised proposal, and also to the proposal to devalue the Italian green lira by 6 per cent. The new green rates are to apply from 1st February for milk and milk products, pigmeat, beef and veal and, in the case of Italy only, for sugar. For other products the new green rates will come into effect at the beginning of the marketing year for each product. This means that the resulting increase in United Kingdom intervention prices for sugar will not take place until 1st July, and for cereals not until 1st August.
The Council's agreement is not, however, definitive at this stage. The German,

Dutch and Belgian delegations said that, because of the short time they had had to consider this proposal they could agree to it only ad referendum; in other words, by reserving the right of their Governments to withdraw their consent. They proposed that the ad referendum period should run to 1st February.
There is no precedent for a member State being denied a request to change its green rate at a Council meeting, and a delay of the length suggested would have had two disadvantages. It would have prevented the regulation being published in time for the devaluations to take effect on 1st February, and it could have prejudiced the discussion of other issues in the interim. The first difficulty was met by bringing forward the end of the ad referendum period to 29th January. On the second point, I made it clear that, until the devaluation of the green pound was finally approved, I should not feel able to take part in the discussion of other issues.

Mr. Peyton: Does the right hon. Gentleman think there is any likelihood of these objections proving to be anything more than merely formal? To the extent to which he shares our anxiety—that the longer these subsidised imports go on, the more established becomes the place in our market of these goods—does he agree that in future there is a danger that he might meet increasing resistance from his colleagues in the Council to similar proposals to that which he has now made?
I note that the right hon. Gentleman intends to take no further part in the discussions. However, is he satisfied that that will involve no risk of unpalatable decisions being taken in his absence?

Mr. Silkin: The first and third matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman come together. A German Minister, Herr von Dohnanyi, this morning spoke to my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and assured him that the German delegation did not intend to make any link between the devaluation of the green pound and the common fisheries policy. My hon. Friend assured him that the United Kingdom would consider the Commission's proposals for 1978–79 farm prices on their merits. I understand that the German Government will not be in a position to lift their reserve on the devaluation of the


green pound until 29th January. For my part, I intend to attend the fisheries Council on 30th January.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to what he called "subsidised imports". Perhaps it is better to say that they are FEOGA financed export subsidies to another country. It is always a question of balance. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government's view is that the trouble with a devaluation of the green pound it that it can be brutal to the British consumer. I think the stand which the Opposition took in the wind-up speech, in which their policy was outlined for the next two years, makes that clear. As regards parity, which is what he suggested for the next two years, it will mean an increase of 6½p in the pound on food prices. There are arguments—and they are good arguments—which show that we ought to preserve and, indeed, increase our self-sufficiency. I absolutely agree. However, we cannot do that at the expense of the consumer. We must do it as one nation.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman has answered a question that I did not put to him. He has not answered the question that I did put. Since he is dealing with the effect on food prices, may I ask whether he agrees that only one-sixth of one penny on his food index separates our proposals from his?

Mr. Silkin: I read that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition made that point at what I understand was an agreeable dinner the other night. However, I should inform her that she was badly briefed at the time. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), in the wind-up speech, said that all commodities should be devalued at the same time immediately. That makes a great deal of difference. I agree that the Commission's final proposal, on the basis of a 5 per cent. devaluation, does not make too much difference. However, that is very different from the Conservative Party's proposal of 7½ per cent. When that is taken together with what the hon. Member for Westmorland said about it being Conservative Party policy that the whole gap should be wiped in two years, my figures stand.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am grateful to the Minister for his full resumé of what

transpired at the Council of Ministers meeting in Brussels. Does he agree that if the Government had devalued the green pound by 5 per cent. last December with a further commitment for 1978, life would have been made much easier for the right hon. Gentleman to conclude negotiations in Brussels with a satisfactory price review that would have been of benefit to farmers and consumers in this country?

Mr. Silkin: I wish that I could take so sanguine a view of matters. The position was this. There was resistance even to 5 per cent. That had taken place the day before whilst the House was debating the matter. The arguments against a 5 per cent. devaluation were from those European colleagues of ours whom I am always accused of irritating and who are always supposed to be pressing me for a green pound devaluation. I had to remind one of my European colleagues that on his visit to this country in June, when he addressed our pigmeat producers, he said "Mr. Silkin only has to ask for a green pound devaluation of any amount and it will be given to him instantly".

Mr. Corbett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his determination to try to see that there is no increase in Common Market prices for those commodities which are in surplus. How does he regard the attitude of the West Germans, the Dutch and the Belgians? Does he regard it as an outrage to the will of this House as expressed on Monday night, or does he welcome them to the sensible minority here who do not want needlessly to force up consumer prices right across the board?

Mr. Silkin: The view that it would be wrong to force up prices right across the board was the view taken by the Commission. The Commissioner's view was that a 5 per cent. devalution of the green pound was justified. But he had strong reservations about a 7½ per cent. devaluation. The objections made by our European partners were not on that basis.
What I felt was that this was the first time, as I think I told the House, in the history of the many changes to green currencies, whether sterling or any other currency, that any European member State had at a Council meeting tried to


prevent another member State from devaluing or revaluing. I regarded that, in the case of the United Kingdom and following the expressed determination of the British House of Commons, as being quite unacceptable.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister ensure that there will be no EEC concessions or trade-offs between United Kingdom agriculture and fisheries and that he will take an equally firm stand for both during these negotiations?

Mr. Silkin: That is my view.

Sir David Renton: The Minister has not made quite clear when the MCAs of the Dutch, the Danes and others will start to operate in relation to pigs with the 7½ per cent. devaluation. Will he clarify that?

Mr. Silkin: Assuming that the reserves are lifted—and the date in question is supposed to be 29th January—it will operate for pigmeat on 1st February. As regards the cereals which feed the pigs in question, it will not start to operate until 1st August.

Mr. Jay: In view of what my right hon. Friend said about the German Government, what is the validity of this reserve put on his request, and does he expect it to be wholly withdrawn by 29th January?

Mr. Silkin: The way in which it was put was that all the member States, with the exception of one which abstained and therefore did not count, expressed their approval, subject to a reservation. But the reservation enables the Government to say "No. We will not accept it." I hope that what I said at the Council and following the Council and what I have said to the House of Commons today will help everyone to make up his mind in a sensible and conciliatory manner.

Mr. Emery: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? He has expressed concern about the delay, which has not existed before. Will he undertake to institute some inquiries to see that this sort of procedure is not allowed to arise in the future and that some steps are taken to alter the regulations in order to ensure that it does not?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman clear up what appears to be a doubt? Apparently he is attending the

meeting on Friday concerned with fisheries. At the same time, it was suggested that he would not take a major part in them. Those engaged in mackerel fishing in the South-West, small in number though they may be, are so concerned that they are considering breaking the regulations because they see themselves losing their livelihood. Will the right hon. Gentleman take that into consideration in the negotiations?

Mr. Silkin: I will take all matters into consideration in the negotiations, including what I have always believed to be the wholly justifiable position of the United Kingdom—one with which I think the whole House agrees.
With regard to the dates of the meetings on fisheries, the next Fisheries Council is on Monday. However, I understand that there were hopes of having unofficial meetings in the course of this week. It is these meetings which I felt on the whole I might not have time to attend if I had to explain to this House very fully why, for the first time, reserves of this kind were put upon a proposition of this sort.
As for writing something into the regulations, I do not think that that is quite the way to do it. There are a number of Council rules which are perhaps better not written down. I think that this is one of them. At the same time, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We have to see that it does not happen again.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: In view of recent events in the EEC, can my right hon. Friend give any indication of what his prognosis is about the subsequent effect on the green pound—a 7½ per cent. devaluation, a 5 per cent. devaluation or, as I fervently hope, to protect the consumer, no devaluation at all?

Mr. Silkin: In the light of the increase to 7½ per cent. and in the light of the Commission's view of matters, too, I cannot foresee an increase in the devaluation of the green pound for a very long time to come.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Without commenting on the Minister's insistence on keeping food prices as low as possible, may I remind him that it was his Government who introduced a tax on food? Is he aware that it is now costing the consumer about £160 million a year? Would not


its removal reduce the food price index by nearly 1 per cent? May we expect the right hon. Gentleman to work to that end?

Mr. Silkin: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I know that various representations have been made at various times to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ioan Evans: My right hon. Friend will realise that there is general appreciation of the strong stand that he has taken in the discussions in Europe. But does he not feel that his position was weakened by the decision of the House of Commons to try to force up prices further than the Government intended? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in future discussions the strong representations that he has received from the National Consumer Council, the Welsh Consumer Council and other consumer bodies, try to change the CAP completely, and revert to the policy that we had previously of guaranteed prices and deficiency payments?

Mr. Silkin: I must be fair. The decision of the House on this matter, although I disagreed with it and although the Government disagreed with it, did not affect our negotiating position in Europe. It is only right that I should make that quite clear. However, to my mind, it affected adversely the position of the consumer, and I am glad that the Commission, with ourselves, in putting its proposals managed to rescue the consumer from an immediate devaluation of 7½ per cent., which would have been disastrous.

Mr. Jopling: Does the Minister realise that in quoting what I said on Monday night he was not being entirely fair? I said that it was the Opposition's aim to do away with the existing green pound discrepancy over two to three years—not two years. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that.
Secondly, did I hear the Minister say that what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in a speech on Tuesday night was wrong when she implied that the difference between a 5 per cent. and the 7½ per cent. devaluation which the House agreed on Monday amounted to a rise of no more than one-

sixth of a penny in the pound on the retail price index?

Mr. Silkin: Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman. I was referring to Conservative Party policy and not to what the House decided. The House decided the 7½ per cent. devaluation in a rather ambiguous way, and I took that to mean, on reflection, that, provided I could persuade the Commission to do it, it did not matter whether it was a single devaluation or one done selectively, as we had proposed. It was Conservative Party policy, as the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) himself said, that there should be a total devaluation, unselectively. That was the difference—between a selective devaluation of 5 per cent. and an unselective devaluation of 7½ per cent. I want to be fair to the hon. Member for Westmorland. Indeed, the fairer I am to him, the more the public ought to know what he is saying. I am delighted to know that it is over two to three years and not just over two years that the foodstuffs of this country would be going up by 6½p in the pound if the Conservatives got their way.

Mr. Torney: In the light of the flagrant disregard of this House by the Common Market in its decision not to allow the devaluation of the green pound, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Cabinet should be informed of the feeling of the House and that some action should be taken by the Cabinet towards basically changing the rules of the Common Market, particularly the common agricultural policy, so as to ensure that this kind of thing cannot happen again?

Mr. Silkin: The policy of the Government remains the same. We have always said that the common agricultural policy needs radical change. But I do not think that we should over-dramatise what to my mind smacked much more of tomfoolery, as I said at the time, than perhaps of a wild but calculated position.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I will call three more hon. Members.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether he is entirely confident that our European partners will remove their objections to a devaluation of 7½ per cent. on or before


29th January? Would not the right hon. Gentleman concede that the decision of this House on Monday, involving, as it does, a very small increase in the price of food, is a price well worth paying if it results in the increased investment in agriculture that will guarantee a secure market and a secure production of food in this country in the long term?

Mr. Silkin: The very small devaluation that the hon. Gentleman refers to is a difference of 8·1 per cent. in support prices. That is quite a jump. I agree that some devaluation was necessary in order to preserve our own home industry from being overtaken by foreign competition—that was the Government's point. But it is still a question of how much and of being reasonable and realising that there are not, after all, 97 per cent. consumers and 3 per cent. farmers and farmworkers but 100 per cent. consumers in this country.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, have heard my request to the Leader of the House. Can he now tell me, in view of the concern expressed by the fishing industry, both to him and to hon. Members this week, whether we shall have a debate before a conclusion is reached?

Mr. Silkin: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I could throw

this at one another throughout the afternoon. He could say that I am about to make a statement, and I could say that it is a matter for him, and that is true. One could conceive of an occasion when a decision had to be made on a common fisheries policy without an immediate consultation with the House. I would regard that as a very sad thing, and I hope to avoid it as far as possible. But such a situation is conceivable, and it is only fair that I should put that on record. I have taken the precaution of keeping the Scrutiny Committee informed, and its acting Chairman is well aware that this difficulty could arise. I will do all in my power to see that it does not.

Mr. Marten: When the EEC subsidies have been phased out towards the end of the year, when the devaluation of the green pound and its effects have been brought in, what will be the price of a pound of butter on the British market? Is it true that it will about 70p a pound?

Mr. Silkin: I have to do a very quick calculation. Unless something is done and forgetting any common price increase that might occur, but taking into account the green pound change and loss of subsidy, the extent of the difference would be about 13p in the pound from the time when the subsidy was at its height.

EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

4.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill:—


Committee, Report and Third Reading


1.—(1) The remaining Proceedings in Committee on the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days, and those Proceedings shall be taken in the order stated and be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the following table:—


TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
Clause 3—remaining proceedings.
6 p.m.



Clause 2.
8 p.m.



New Clauses relating to treaties increasing the powers of the Assembly.




Schedule 1—Amendments before paragraph 2.
Midnight.


Second day
Schedule 1—remaining proceedings.
 


Schedule 2.




Clauses 12 to 16.




Remaining new Clauses.




New Schedules.




Clauses 4 to 11.




Schedules 3 to 5 and remaining proceedings in Committee.
Midnight.

(2) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and on that day—


(a) the Proceedings on Consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.00 p.m.; and


(b) the Proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion at Midnight.


(3) Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.


Proceedings on going into Committee


2. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr Speaker shall forthwith put the Question on any Motion for an Instruction standing on the Order Paper in the name of a Member of the Government, and shall then leave the chair without putting any other Question, whether or not notice of any other Instruction has been given.


Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee


3. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.


Order of Consideration


4. No Motion shall be made to change the order in which the Bill is to be considered in Committee or on Consideration.


Dilatory Motions


5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.


Extra time on allotted days


6.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this paragraph.


(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under this paragraph, and the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall also be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion.


Private Business


7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.


Conclusion of Proceedings


8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—


(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);


(b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;


(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.


(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.


(3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.


(4) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted day, or to any later time under sub-paragraph (3) above, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.


Supplemental orders


9.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill on an allotted day.


(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended before that time, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.


Saving


10. Nothing in this Order shall—


(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order, or


(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommitta[...]


11.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.


(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.


Interpretation


12. In this Order—


"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;


"the Bill" means the European Assembly Elections Bill.

Whenever debates take place on guillotine motions—and, like everyone else who participates, I have been reading those that have taken place over the last 10 years—the same themes emerge. They relate to three needs. The first is the need to secure the passage of the Bill in question, the second is the need to protect the rest of the legislative programme, and the third is the need to give adequate time for proper discussion of the Bill. I believe that again these are the important questions to be covered in today's debate.

There is in this case, however, one important difference. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the divisions in the House do not run on normal party lines. The debates over the last 10 or 15 years were always very severely between Government and Opposition, with the Government part of the time saying that they wanted the guillotine and the Opposition of the time saying "No", and with the parties' arguments reversed once they changed sides in the House.

In this instance we are not in that position, because the divisions do not run on party lines. Just as there is more than one view on the Government side, so there is more than one view on the Opposition side.

First, there is the need to secure the passage of the Bill. As the House well knows, the origins of direct elections to the European Assembly go back many years—to the establishment of the Community in 1958. Article 138(3) of the Treaty provides for direct elections and ultimately according to uniform procedure. It was only comparatively recently, in September 1976, that agreement was reached among the nine member States on arrangements for elections to the European Assembly. It was a political

decision made by Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), in one of the early debates, when perhaps that point was not as clear as it is now, brought out in his speech that this decision did not arise out of Article 138(3) but was a political decision by the Labour Government.

The agreed target date for the first elections was May-June 1978, but the United Kingdom Government warned our Community partners that we could not be sure of meeting that deadline. The Government are clear that they want to honour their basic commitment to direct elections, made by the Prime Minister, and I put it to the House that when the leader of a Government makes such a commitment to an international organisation it is the desire of that Government to honour the commitment. That is one of the reasons for putting forward this motion.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is the desire of the Government to honour their international obligations. Can we assume, therefore, that all members of the Government, including all members of the Cabinet, will be voting for the motion?

Mr. Rees: I suppose that the division among us will be about the same as on the Opposition Front Bench. One of the factors in this matter is the division of opinion on both sides of the House. There are divisions in the Government about it, but that was perfectly well known beforehand.
It has been claimed that a deal has been done by the Government with groups in various parts of the House. That is not true. No deal has been


done with the Conservative Opposition; no deal has been done with other Opposition parties.
There are others who concede the validity of the argument for passing the Bill but say that it is not essential for the Bill to proceed to Royal Assent in the present Session. It could be argued, and will be argued, that if the original target date of May-June for the first elections cannot be met, there is no urgency for the Bill to be passed. I agree that the decision of the Committee, taken on 13th December, to reject the Government's recommended regional list system effectively ruled out the May-June 1978 date for the first elections to the European Assembly.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary informed the Council of Foreign Ministers on 17th January this year of the present stage reached by the European Assembly Elections Bill and explained the implications for the May-June 1978 target date. I am told that this news came as no surprise to the Council of Foreign Ministers. Indeed, it is by no means certain that all other member States would have been ready for elections by May-June 1978. [Interruption.] Every country must speak for itself. Various Foreign Ministers expressed considerable disappointment that the May-June 1978 date cannot be met, and there was general agreement on the desirability of fixing a new target date which all member States could be reasonably sure of meeting.
Although no decision has been taken about the new date, it will presumably be sometime in 1979. That is one of the results of the time that has been taken. Since Parliament has, in effect, decided on the simply majority system of elections and on determining the European Assembly constituencies by means of a Boundary Commission procedure, there needs to be a substantial period of time between Royal Assent to the Bill and the date for the first elections. The timings of the various schemes were given in the White Paper which the Government published last year.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: How will the decision be reached concerning the date of the elections? Will it be by the European Council or by the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Rees: I must be frank and say that I am not quite sure which of the two it will be. I understand that it will be decided in exactly the same way as last time.
The two things are inevitably interrelated. If we are to have the simple majority system, a Boundary Commission procedure, from the point of view of the Government, is an essential part of doing so. I remind the House that details have to come to the House in the form of an order.
There have been many of these debates. I can recall being a junior Minister at a time when a Labour Administration decided that part of the boundary changes for Parliament for the London area and other large constituencies should be put in the Bill direct, and there was an outcry about doing that. Strong views were expressed about the decisions which had been taken.
I have a responsibility—which my hon. Friend the Minister of State exercises on a day-to-day basis—for Boundary Commission decisions. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have differing views and views which conflict with what is put forward by the Boundary Commission. I accept that Clause 3 has not yet been passed, but, in effect, we have decided on the simple majority system, which will mean that the Boundary Commission will be involved.
It follows that, if the United Kingdom is to play its proper part in discussing and working with reasonable flexibility towards a new target date, it is essential that the European Assembly Elections Bill should pass through all its stages in the present parliamentary Session.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Is the implication of what my right hon. Friend has just said about the Boundary Commisison that subsequently, when the order comes to the House, there will be no possibility whatsoever of guillotining the debate and that hon. Members may put forward any amendments they may wish to introduce concerning the Boundary Commission proposals? It seems to me that my right hon. Friend has planted in the minds of hon. Members that this really is not the final decision and that we shall have another chance later on.

Mr. Rees: All I am implying is that eventually the recommendations for the 78 constituencies will be brought to the House in the form of an order, on which the House will vote. [Interruption.] I am simply pointing out the procedures that we have to go through.
I turn now to the need to protect the rest of the legislative programme. I rest on what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said already today at Business Question Time—that there is other legislation that we need to put through the House and that it is important from the Government's point of view that we have the time in which to do so. There is new legislation which springs up as a result of new needs. It is vital for the Government of the day to protect the time of the House.
I make no complaint about the amount of time that has already been spent on the subject. The opponents of the Bill are entitled to make use of the procedures of the House in order to prevent swift progress—or, indeed, to kill the Bill, which is the intention of many hon. Members who have spoken. But the Government have a right and duty to protect their legislative programme as a whole, and a guillotine motion is one of the procedures by which this can be done.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate how the Lord President will be voting in the Division this evening, in view of the line that he took in previous debates?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman must wait and see. We shall be looking with interest to see the way in which many people on the Opposition side vote.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The Home Secretary has been making a very interesting speech about the importance of getting the Bill in the present Session of Parliament and about protecting the Government's business, but the motion on the Order Paper is for a timetable of three days. Is he intending to address some remarks to that point? It seems a little odd that a Bill which needs only three days should need a timetable motion in order to get it through this Session, with the timetable motion being moved in January.

Mr. Rees: I have read all the other debates on the subject and have noted that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been a participant in them over the years. He has usually made that same intervention somewhere in the course of the proceedings.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: If the Government were to lose the guillotine this evening, would I be right in assuming that they would drop the Bill in any event rather than continue with a hopeless attempt to get it through this Session, and in that way enable room to be made for the other legislation to which reference has been made?

Mr. Rees: I can do no more than use the phrase "Wait and see".
The third need is to give adequate time for debate. I believe that the matter of time is most important. I fully recognise and have frequently emphasised the importance of the Bill in constitutional and parliamentary terms. It is not the case that the House has been short of opportunities to consider the principle of direct elections. On the contrary, the debates on the principle of direct elections to the European Assembly have taken place over a long period of time.
The Government's Green Paper on direct elections to the European Assembly was published nearly two years ago. There was a two-day debate in March 1976 on the Green Paper, following which a Select Committee of this House was established to look into all aspects of the matter. The Select Committee published three reports in the course of 1976, together with the record of evidence received by it. The first of those reports was debated in July 1976. The second and third reports were considered by the House in the two-day debate in the spring of 197 on the Government's White Paper on direct elections.
Subsequently, the Government introduced a Bill in more or less the same terms as the present Bill in June 1977. There was a two-day debate, as a result of which the Bill was given a Second Reading by a very large majority. Before the present Bill was introduced, therefore, the House had already spent 49 hours debating direct elections. That is before this Bill.

Mr. Neil Marten: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that one of the key issues in the Bill relates to the powers of the European Assembly. The Foreign Secretary promised to introduce a new clause in this regard which we have not yet seen. [HON. MEMBERS "We have."] Well, I have not. It must have come in today. But that has taken seven weeks to prepare, and under this vicious guillotine we shall have only three and a half hours to discuss it. Is that right?

Mr. Rees: I shall come to the new clause and the amendment to the title in a moment. I was making the point about spending 49 hours on the principle.
In the present Session also we have had extended debates on the principle of holding elections. The Second Reading debate on 24th November was naturally concerned with the main principle, as were the debates on Clause 1 on 1st and 12th December. All this has consumed an additional 17 hours. I do not grumble about the 49 hours that I mentioned earlier. But, taking into account those additional 17 hours, the House cannot argue that there has not been sufficient time for arguing the main principles of direct elections in the last two years.
The other major issue on which I believe it would have been wrong to limit or inhibit debate was the method of election to the European Assembly. On this we had a full-day debate on 13th December on the respective merits of the regional list system and the simple majority system of election. On 12th January we had a lengthy debate on the alternative vote system of election and we also spent a considerable time discussing the merits of the single transferable vote for Northern Ireland.
I concede that the system which the Government are putting forward for Northern Ireland is a very important matter, about which people in Northern Ireland feel strongly. We have spent time discussing this already on the Floor of the Committee. I also concede that it is likely that it would not be very long—whatever that means—before we came to a decision on that.
As the Minister in charge of the Bill, I believe it is right that we should spend time debating and considering these important and difficult questions. We have

almost completed our consideration of the electoral system to be used.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My right hon. Friend has spent a lot of time telling us how long we have spent in debating the principle. Would he not agree that on major matters such as the third London Airport and the Channel Tunnel similar debates took place? It is no good at all saying that we do not need to look at the rest of the Bill as it exists. Will he tell the House what he believes are the outstanding matters that require attention, because other hon. Members may have other lists?

Mr. Rees: I shall certainly come to that in a moment. I have talked about the method of election, on which there has been discussion. With regard to powers, assuming that in the debate on Clause 3 the Committee will approve the simple majority system—judging by the vote towards the end of last year, I assume that that is what will happen—what generally is left is the application of our traditional and well-understood electoral system to the circumstances of European Assembly elections.
I have with me a copy of the Bill. Everything that is left relates to methods of election which have been used in this country for normal Westminster elections since the dissolution and election Bills of 1884, nearly 100 years ago. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill which is new in concept. On one aspect, the method by which certain orders can be put in future, I shall be putting down an amendment on Report. I hope that that will cover a number of points which hon. Members have brought to my notice.
Nevertheless, the rest of the Bill, except for powers, relates to matters that have been dealt with in the Home Office over the years, that have been debated in the House over the years. There is nothing new, because this House decided that there should be a first-past-the-post system. If that had not been done, I concede that it would have meant developments to our normal system that would have excited our interest—but not now. The only thing new that is left relates to powers, and a new clause—

Mr. Ronald Bell: That is quite untrue. There is a whole Second Schedule to the Bill, including the curtailment of all the


rights of appeal and public inquiries which are the normal familiar practice. Are we not to have any kind of debate on something which is entirely unfamiliar?

Mr. Rees: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises an interesting point about method which relates to the White Paper. I shall listen with interest to what will be said on this occasion. The point I am making is that there is nothing fundamentally different except with regard to powers, and a new clause is now on the Amendment Paper relating to parliamentary approval of treaties increasing the powers of the Assembly.
But the discussions that we have had during the last seven weeks in the Foreign Office and the Home Office have been held in the light of the views expressed in this House. The timetable motion has been carefully drawn up to allow an appropriate period for discussion of the method of powers which we have already discussed on the Floor of the Committee.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the question of powers and the new clause, may I ask whether he is aware that after considering this for seven weeks the Home Office has published the new clause with a major misprint which makes it completely meaningless? If such an efficient Department as the Home Office can take seven weeks and get an amendment all wrong, is that not evidence that there is not very much hurry?

Mr. Rees: I am prepared to accept the blame, but, for the record, the new clause by its nature is a matter for the Foreign Office. However, I share Government responsibility. But I should like the record to be absolutely right—that is, if my right hon. Friend is correct.

Mr. Jay: Surely the fact that both the Home Office and Foreign Office together cannot get an amendment right strengthens my point.

Mr. Rees: I can only explain why it has taken us so long. But, knowing of the knowledge of my right hon. Friend and his allies, I am sure that the point can be dealt with in a matter of moments.
The timetable motion proposes that two full days should be allocated to the further consideration of the Bill in

Committee and that a further day should be allocated to Report and Third Reading. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame".] Following the Committee's rejection of the regional list system of election, the Bill now effectively consists of only eight clauses and two schedules. I have already made the point about the principle and what there is left to discuss. I do not think that any question of principles arises now.

Mr. John Lee: My right hon. Friend has told us about the way in which the allotted time is to be distributed. Will he tell us what the position of the Government will be if we have a repetition of the situation last night, when they sustained adverse votes within a timetable motion, and they are now faced with the somewhat humiliating situation of having to deal with the matter again? Are we to understand that if the Government were to be defeated on any of the remaining votes there would be an enlargement of the matter while the Government had another stab of it?

Mr. Rees: I accept that a number of votes will take place relatively soon. On the question of powers, I make the point again that this is a matter of principle. The others are matters that have stood the test of time. We shall have to see what happens if, in this curious situation of the whole question of the EEC, adverse decisions are taken. But we have said to our Common Market friends that we would use our "best endeavours". The House must bear that in mind when the decision is taken tonight. That is the purpose of it.
It must be clear to all hon. Members that without a timetable motion proceedings on the Bill could be endlessly extended. It is important that the Bill should pass through all its parliamentary stages in the present Session. The House gave a Second Reading to the Bill by a very considerable majority, and I hope that there will be a similar majority for this guillotine motion.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. David Howell: We on this side of the House believe that there should be a free vote on the timetable motion this evening, but before the debate continues it might be helpful if I


set out how some of us approach this matter.
In some ways I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary had the task of moving the guillotine motion, because, one way or another, I suspect that the House has had enough of the activities of the Lord President and his adventures with guillotines. It is probably just as well, not least for his own health, that he is taking a sabbatical from this type of exercise.
However, if the Home Secretary is trying to persuade us to vote for the timetable motion, he is going about it in a bizarre way. For a start, I do not accept the implication—I hope that he was not making it—that the rejection of the regional list PR system made the guillotine motion necessary. If anything, I believe that we have been placed in this difficulty because of the feebleness of the Government in failing to bring forward the measure in time.
I make no secret of the fact that this timetable motion tabled by the Government places me, and no doubt some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, in something of a dilemma. I think that is obvious. On the one hand, most of us—not all—want to see this measure on the statute book. I agree with what I think the Home Secretary was trying to say—namely, that it would be an insult to the capacity of the dedicated opponents of the Bill to assume that if there were no timetable motion they would not dish the Bill.
On the other hand—this is the other side of the dilemma—I must confess that it sticks in the gullet to help the Government out of yet another hole into which the Lord President and others have landed us.
There is a further problem. We have been told—this has been leaked in the newspaper and through the usual leaking channels—that approval of this motion is in some way connected with the Lib-Lab pact and that this is today's quoted price for that pact. I hope that I shall not sound too cynical if I say that the price of the Lib-Lab pact seems to oscillate like the daily price of a cauliflower. Therefore, we should not give too much credence to that argument.
There is yet another dilemma on which the Home Secretary—and others in their

interventions in his speech—touched. Even if the arguments for a guillotine are accepted, the timetable is extremely tight. There is this vital new clause, and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has already told us that as tabled it does not make sense. I have no doubt that the Home Office and Foreign Office between them will eventually manage to put some English grammar on the Amendment Paper, but at the moment the clause is a nonsense. We have only just seen the clause, and one would have liked more time to discuss a matter as vital as this.
We must also consider the question of the Third Reading. There might well have been a case for having a proper Third Reading debate as we had on the European Communities Bill. I suggest that in curtailing the debate by this timetable motion the Home Secretary is screwing the process down unnecessarily tight. That is a pity, and it is why we have pressed for more time. I am sorry that the Home Secretary does not seem to recognise that point of view.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Apart from the new clause on powers and the subject of Third Reading, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are 48 full pages of amendments, most of which still remain even after the elimination of the regional list system? It is difficult to see how we can consider 48 pages of amendments in the two days that we are being allowed in completing the Committee stage.

Mr. Howell: I would point out that not all those amendments will be selected, but my hon. and learned Friend reinforces the argument that this is a tight schedule. However, the Home Secretary so far has shown no signs of acceding to the reasonable argument for more time. We can argue endlessly whether there should be more or less time. The reality is that the question of curtailing debate on this Bill would never have arisen if this matter had not been persistently delayed by the passionate anti-Marketeers in the Government, presumably with the Lord President and others in the lead.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: In view of the hon. Gentleman's admission that it is the task of opponents of the Bill to delay the measure indefinitely,


does it not follow that, even if the Government had introduced the Bill at a much earlier stage, it would still have run into trouble months ago and that a guillotine would have been necessary?

Mr. Howell: I have said that we face dilemmas on this matter. There are dedicated opponents of the Bill. I am not seeking to disguise the dilemma. My view is that if one supports the Bill and wants to see it on the statute book, one should consider voting for the timetable motion tonight. I am confident that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will follow that course.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend give advice to those of us who take the view that the new schedule in Amendment No. 78, in the names of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) and others, is the only practical way of getting elections in May-June of this year? Does he take the view that the timetable motion as it now appears will or will not result in a debate and vote on the new schedule? This is crucial, and I would value his advice.

Mr. Howell: If the House wants it, the opportunity is there, but it is also a matter for debate whether we should depart from the proper procedures laid down by the Boundary Commission. That is a matter for debate. I appreciate my hon. Friend's suggestion of a short-cut. When the target date for this Bill was 1978, there might have been a stronger case than there now is—I put the matter no higher than that—for pursuing that short-cut procedure. My own preference would be that we should stick to the Boundary Commission procedures laid down and recommended by the Select Committee. However, that is a matter of personal preference.
It gives me no joy to lift a finger in support of this pathetic and befuddled Government. Since it is not even a Government but a ragged part of a Government—a half Government—who are now trying to manage this Bill, I believe that it behoves those of us who support the EEC to carry this business forward and to support the motion. That is certainly why I shall support the motion, and I

believe that most of my right hon. and hon. Friends will follow that course.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. David Stoddart: When I heard that we were to have a guillotine motion on this Bill, I was extremely angry, as indeed were many other hon. Members, and we made our anger felt in the House. Since then my anger has turned to sorrow that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should bring forward this restricted motion on this very important constitutional Bill. One can understand that the Government want to get the Bill with reasonable expedition. It seems that with the timetable motion the Government are trying to get it with indecent haste.
We must question the need for a guillotine at this time. The Home Secretary admitted that there has been no attempt to filibuster on the Bill or to delay its passage in Committee. All the amendments that have been considered so far have been dealt with in reasonable time and decisions have been reached after relatively short debates.
So far, we have spent only 22 hours in Committee and seven and a half hours of that time was spent on an issue that was deliberately introduced into the Bill by the Government and not through the will of Parliament. The regional list system was introduced as a result of the pact between the Government and the Liberal Party. The Leader of the Liberal Party admitted at the weekend that it had nothing to do with the Labour Party but was something between himself and the Government. Discounting that time, we have spent only 14½ hours in Committee so far.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Does my hon. Friend agree that about two and a half hours was taken up by points of order, some of which were of varying validity, even though they were accepted by the Chair?

Mr. Stoddart: The points of order were shown to be valid. Indeed, the Chair was sympathetic to them. My hon. Friend must not grumble if hon. Members do the job for which they are elected, namely, to make sure that legislation going through the House is, as far as possible, pure legislation.
Why the haste over this Bill? The Home Secretary has tried to convince us


that it is necessary to get the Bill on the statute book so that we can honour the obligations and promises made to the heads of foreign Governments and, perhaps, the Liberal Party.
However, we understand that there will be no direct elections to the European Assembly until 1979–15 or 16 months hence—at the earliest, and there is no doubt that the Government have plenty of time in which to get the Bill through this House and another place. We know from the record of another place that the Bill will go through there like a dose of salts, because most of its Members are besotted with Europe. Even without a guillotine, it is possible that the Bill could be on the statute book before the Summer Recess and that would give plenty of time for the Boundary Commission to do its work, to make recommendations to the House and for us to agree or disagree with them. I cannot understand why there is this indecent haste to get the Bill through this House in another three sittings.
There is almost no precedent for such haste. The European Communities Bill spent 10 days in Committee before the then Government decided that there should be a guillotine and they allowed a further 12 days for the Committee and remaining stages. We have to go back to the National Health Service Bill of 1951–52 to find any sort of precedent. That was an eight-clause Bill.

Mr. Rooker: That was Labour Party policy.

Mr. Stoddart: Indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that, because the provisions of this Bill are not Labour Party policy. Indeed, our policy is the reverse. The limitation of time on this Bill is virtually unprecedented.
Let me remind hon. Members, particularly those opposite, who have been complaining loudly about the restriction of time on the Scotland Bill that this motion will make it virtually impossible for Back-Bench Members' amendments to be voted on. There are some important Back-Bench amendments, but it is almost certain that hardly any of them will be voted on.

Mr. Ronald Bell: May I bear out what the hon. Gentleman is saying? Has he observed that on the first allotted day it

is proposed that the guillotine should fall at 6 p.m. and at 8 p.m.? If there were a number of Divisions at 6 p.m., as there easily might be, there would be virtually no time to consider Clause 2 and all the amendments tabled to it before the guillotine fell again at 8 p.m.

Mr. Stoddart: That is true. I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for pointing out that fact.
The timetable motion restricts debate on the amendment currently under discussion to two hours. It is a fundamental amendment and we have debated it so far for only one and a half hours. The amendment deals with the question of proportional representation in Northern Ireland, and I remind some of my hon. Friends who voted against proportional representation for England and Scotland that we had much more time to debate that question than we shall have to debate PR in Northern Ireland. This may not be a matter of importance to some hon. Members, but it is certainly important to all the Members from Northern Ireland, irrespective of their party allegiances, and the debate on this important topic will be unduly restricted.
Hon. Members who voted on last night's amendment to the Scotland Bill dealing with the limitation on the referendum should note Amendment No. 172 to this Bill, which would have a similar effect. Unless we are given a lot more time, there will be practically no discussion of that amendment.
All through we find topics of the utmost importance to the House and the country. For example, many of us are concerned about the salary levels that have been mentioned in relation to Members of the European Parliament. We want to discuss that matter, but under the timetable motion it is unlikely that we shall be able to do so.
I advise hon. Members to read the letter in The Times today from the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) about the Home Office and the way that we shall be handing over to the Home Secretary election matters over which the House exercises power at present. People may think that it is not important, but I shall give an example. At present it is the political parties that issue writs for by-elections. In other words, with certain restrictions, it is in


the hands of the political parties to decide when they hold a by-election and move a writ in this House. Being the Member for Swindon, I have had some experience of this. Sometimes it does not work out as the electorate would like, but in general it is a system which works. But under the Bill we shall be handing that power to the Home Secretary as, indeed, we shall be handing over other powers over which the House now has control.
How much discussion are we to have on the new clause tabled by the Government, a very important clause and one that is absolutely vital to the future of the House and its powers? We shall have about four hours if we are lucky. It may be less, dependent upon the time at which we reach the debate.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has referred to the great sympathy that we had from the Chair in relation to the selection and movement of amendments out of order. Has he noticed the new draft instruction in the new Orders of the Day in the name of "Mr. Secretary Ross"—that name has appeared once again? It instructs the Committee considering the European Assembly Elections Bill that it has
power to make provision in the Bill to secure that no treaty which provides
and so on. That is clearly an instruction to the Committee which allows the new clause to which my hon. Friend refers and which otherwise would be out of order. Since, under paragraph 2 of the guillotine motion, that instruction must be decided on a vote forthwith by the House itself, does that not show the extreme lengths to which the Government will go to get that new clause in order, when other amendments of hon. Members are ruled out of order by the nature of the Bill?

Mr. Stoddart: My hon. Friend has obviously studied the timetable motion very closely. I could not have put what he has just said any better. I therefore leave the House to savour his wisdom without further comment.
There are grave issues, vital to the House and the people, to be discussed. It is disgraceful that the Government should bring forward the guillotine in such restrictive terms. It is more repre-

hensible and disgraceful that the Opposition, on an almost unprecedented basis, should advise their Members to vote for the guillotine. Since when have Oppositions voted for guillotines? [Interruption.] It is a free vote but "Follow me", a free vote but "I shall do this."

Mr. William Molloy: This is done only on EEC matters.

Mr. Stoddart: As my hon. Friend says, there is one standard for the EEC and different standards for everything else. I wish that all Members, particularly those on the Opposition Front Bench, would consider matters to be at least equal and not be so besotted with the EEC that they will allow this measure to go through the House positively unexamined. They will come up against it later on. They will find that they have made mistakes and will have nobody to blame but themselves, because they will have failed in their duty to give this important Bill the close and detailed examination that it deserves and needs.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) referred to different standards. It is well known to the House that there are also different kinds of guillotine motions. There is the guillotine motion which is used in order to ram through, against party opposition which is using every possible device and delay, a major element of the policy of the Government. There is the guillotine which is used when a Government, believing themselves to be required to do so by their mandate, overload with major pieces of legislation the programme of a Session and, of necessity, have to make space if they are to get the larger proportion of them through. There is the guillotine which is used when a relatively small but determined band set themselves to use their opportunities to resist a piece of legislation.
Hon. Members can construct for themselves other categories. But we need not go too far into that, because we are considering a guillotine motion of a new category altogether. In the category to which it belongs it is so far the only specimen. It is the one example of the unmotivated guillotine. No explanation that can stand up to examination for a


moment has been advanced for the bringing forward of this motion in January 1978.
The Home Secretary referred to the Government's commitment to participate in direct elections, direct elections which nobody now supposes will take place before 1979, and presumably a considerable way into 1979. But the Home Secretary was candid enough to draw the logical deduction from that requirement. He said that we shall need to get the Bill in this Session. The Session may end in August. It may end in October. But the need to get a Bill in this Session is no justification for voting through a three-day timetable motion before January is out.
Let us consider for a moment the history of the Committee stage of the Bill so far. There have been four days of debate. On one of those days the Government were obliged by the general will of the House—otherwise they could not have made progress at all—to promise to bring forward a clause which it was obvious that the House would have to consider very carefully. So virtually the whole of one day and part of the second day of the Committee's proceedings were concerned with a subject which the Government admitted was so vital to the House that they ought to alter the scope of the Bill in order to be able to table a new and important amendment. There was then a day which was spent in enabling the House to take a major decision upon the method of election in Great Britain, and the following day we began to pick up some of the consequences and to tidy up the results of a decision that the House had taken.
Those, Mr. Deputy Speaker—you of all people will remember—were not long days. They were not days prolonged into the night. They were not days crammed up against one another in the time table of this House. It was a leisurely proceeding. We sat usually on a Thursday, not commonly a day on which the House anyway likes to sit late. It certainly did not like to sit late on the most recent day that we were in Committee. The whole procedure has been a stately progress. It could barely be called progress, but at any rate it was stately. Now suddenly, a week afterwards, the Government discover the urgency of getting the Bill through

in this Session and come forward with a guillotine motion.
The Government say that there are other matters which are, or may become, pressing and that room must be made for them. The Leader of the House is a person of great fertility of imagination and invention; he is rarely lost for an argument. But the endeavour to specify what it might be for which time was to be made defeated even the right hon. Gentleman. The Home Secretary, conscious of his lesser powers, was entirely candid and said that this was by way of a sort of contingency item in a Budget. He said "You never know what may turn up. There may be things which will come along, and it would be convenient to have some time."
Even that would be tolerable if it had colourably been suggested that hon. Members who had taken part in these not unimportant debates had been deliberately spinning out their speeches and wasting the time of the House in doing so. But the Home Secretary did not suggest that. He was careful not to suggest that there had been any experience of filibustering and time-wasting.
Indeed, this is one of the new features—and we should recognise it—of the movement of guillotine motions by this Government. When they have moved guillotine motions, previous Governments have read out long indictments of filibustering. It has been an ad misericordiam. They have asked "How can we make headway against an Opposition clearly out to wreck the Bill by talking, talking, talking?" But on two occasions at least I remember the Leader of the House in the most candid fashion saying that he was accusing nobody of filibustering, saying that there had been no waste of time, that the House had been doing its proper work in the proper way.
This afternoon the Home Secretary did not venture to suggest that time had been wasted. He said "You never know, but time might be wasted in the future." He made that observation although, as a result of a decision of the Committee, his Bill had been reduced to about half its original length, although the operative clauses and schedules could now be numbered certainly on the fingers of two hands and probably on the fingers of one


hand. The right hon. Gentleman observed "You never know. The opponents of the Bill might get down to filibustering, and therefore, before they have done so, before it has happened, at the beginning of a Session, in January, we must have a guillotine."
This is an unaccountable guillotine, an unaccountable imposition upon the House—at this stage of this Bill to bring forward this motion. It is therefore the more to be feared and the more to be resented than what I might call the run-of-the-mill type of guillotine of which, let us admit, we all understand and admit the ultimate necessity. But because it is mysterious, because it is rash and unexplained, that does not mean that it is not of dangerous effect should it pass, that it may not be fateful in its results.
There are two elements in the House to whom I believe today's business is specially fateful. One is the Leader of the House himself, whose name is on the motion and who therefore, as a man must who has put his name on a motion, will vote for it. In my opinion the right hon. Gentleman is a man who possesses transparent and transcendent integrity. That is the view I hold and always have held. He told the House earlier this afternoon—I read out his words as I took them down: "In these constitutional matters the views I held on the Back Benches are the same as I hold now."
The right hon. Gentleman had a great decision to make when the Labour Administration was formed in 1974. I believe that he took the right decision, and I honour him for it. For it is not a great parliamentarian who, even after 25 years on the Back Benches exploiting and expounding as no man else what the House is about, if he has the opportunity with his colleagues to assume responsibility, would refuse it. The right hon. Gentleman was right, and of course one accepts that all office carries with it the necessity of compromise. In order to act with others, one makes a certain sacrifice of the 100 per cent. purity, the 100 per cent. logic of one's views, which one has the freedom and the duty, when not in an Administration, to express.
But there is a point—a point lies somewhere—where the contradiction between the beliefs which one is known to hold

and the actions which one advocates as a member of an Administration becomes impossible to tolerate. I say with the greatest respect that I believe that that moment is reached for the right hon. Gentleman with this motion. The right hon. Gentleman, if anybody, has taught the House the consequences of this measure, nor has he concealed his hostility to the measure. Yet his name stands upon a motion, a motion which with almost impudent haste will ensure that that measure which he detests is fastened upon the statute book and that that change in our constitution, the danger of which we have learnt front him as much as from anybody, is fastened upon this country.
I say—perhaps I may dare to say it—that that is an impossible contradiction and this is a fateful day for the right hon. Gentleman. But it is a fateful day not only for him. It is also a fateful day for Her Majesty's Opposition, if they are an Opposition. The business of an Opposition—the prime business, the assumed business, unless there be the strongest and clearest reasons to the contrary—is to uphold the rights of this House, the rights of Back Benchers, the power of Oppositions, the opportunities of Oppositions, and to uphold them even if they are attacked and deserted by others. So there is a prime and presumptive obligation upon an Opposition to oppose, especially in such blatant circumstances as these, where not even the necessity of a policy to which they may be wedded requires them to support the imposition of a timetable motion, any timetable motion, let alone this one.
If the Opposition are not to oppose, they should say in a manly fashion "The following are our reasons why we shall support the Government, why our will is that this measure shall pass." That is the duty of an Opposition, but it is a duty from which they have resiled.
There is no answer from the Opposition. They give no advice to the House, or, rather, they give deliberately balanced and conflicting advice. Those who are connoisseurs of ambivalence always sit back licking their lips with the anticipation of a treat when someone rises from the Opposition Front Bench in debate after debate. Although we were cheated by the brevity, we were not disappointed


with the content this afternoon. It was fully up to standard.
What sort of Opposition are they? They are involved in one of the greatest issues for not merely the House but the country, yet they remain deliberately dumb, deliberately self-contradictory, and give no advice—but perhaps I am wrong—to their supporters behind them. Perhaps I am wrong; for it is rumoured that the word has been passed round "You watch which way who goes". What a splendid fashion to conduct opposition ! If that is not sufficient guidance for hon. Members, they have been told "Well, of course, but you see, if there is an election in October and if"—this becomes decreasingly probable—" a Conservative Administration should be formed following that election"—[HON. MEMBERS: " Heaven forbid."] Labour Members say "Heaven forbid", but I hear that it is said—" we should have to pass the Bill if this Government do not do so. Why, we might have to have debates upon it. We might have to have the whole thing over again, after, presumably, we have gone to the electors and secured their support for our actions." And so the whisper goes around the corridors and the Benches "Let them do the dirty work for us and then they will take the blame. In that way the Bill will be on the statute book when we come into office."
Those who form an Opposition do so, unless they are a mere faction, so as to have the privilege of governing, the privilege of leading. I say to Her Majesty's Opposition "In God's name, give a lead. Whatever it is, give a lead. For only if you do so will you earn the possibility of being asked by your fellow countrymen to lead them".
It is a strange irony that we are having this debate 12 hours—no, a little more—after the scene in the Chamber last night. What indignation there was on the Opposition Front Bench that as a result of a guillotine motion the Administration—it was done in the name and in the interests of the Administration that now brings forward this guillotine motion—should be preventing a right hon. Member from securing a hearing for a case that only he could present in Committee.
I say that the Government have lost the moral right to ask the House today, if they ever had it, to accept this guillotine motion. I say that Her Majesty's Opposition, by failing to oppose it, have cast away the opportunity that they should be seeking to lead the House, for that is the condition of ever leading this nation.

Mr. William Whitelaw: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Powell: I have finished.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: One thing that has clearly emerged from the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is that the prospects of a reconciliation between the right hon. Gentleman and the Tory Front Bench have again receded like a mirage—there was a temporary rumour in the Press of reconciliation—however hard the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition tries to make her policies more acceptable to him. At least that has registered some interest in the state of play.
I do not take quite such a dramatic view of the Lord President. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman's name is the first that appears on the motion. As he has never asked me before to support him on a guillotine motion on a European matter relating to direct elections, I feel that I must consider this unique opportunity to give him some backing.
I hope that the Lord President will reply. I feel that he will be able to sway any of those who have remaining doubts. He will be able to do so with the passion with which he will advance the arguments in favour of the motion. I shall be disappointed if he does not reply.
I have only one criticism of the Government in this instance. The timetable, to which the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) referred, could have been greatly improved upon. The Government would have been better to follow the practice of the previous Conservative Government and consult the other parties. The Tories are perhaps more experienced in timetable motions. It may be that from now on the Government will learn to


take a leaf from the book of the Tory Opposition.
When the European Communities Bill was subject to a timetable motion the offer was made to the opposition parties to discuss it. That opportunity was rejected by the official Opposition, but my colleagues and I discussed the matter with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who was then the Tory Chief Whip, and with the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who was then Leader of the House. As a result, several extra days were added to our proceedings in Committee. I merely say to the Leader of the House that he should have some regard to previous Tory guillotines. The Tories seem to me to be rather more civilised in their consultation with the opposition parties. However, as I have said, perhaps the Tories are more experienced in these matters than the Labour Party. It may be that the Labour Party will learn in due course.
My reasons for believing that it is important to get this measure on the statute book are twofold. First, Her Majesty's Government have committed themselves—it was way back in December 1975 at the Heads of Government meeting at Rome—to the concept of direct elections. Therefore, the Government have a commitment to honour.
Secondly, on two occasions the House has given a massive majority to Second Readings of the Bill, the most recent of which was on 24th November when the Second Reading was carried by 381 votes to 98.
The delays on the part of the House and the country have meant that, not for the first time, we are dragging our feet on European matters. Whatever the Secretary of State for the Home Department may say, I am certain that had this country been ready for elections in June 1978, the other eight countries would likewise have been ready. They would have ensured that they were ready had they been given that spur. I accept that the delay has been largely engineered by the failure of the Government to introduce legislation at an early stage.
I say in answer to the hon. Member for Guildford that there has been no discussion as part of the Lib-Lab Pact on

the need to introduce the guillotine. However, it was part of the pact that this legislation should be introduced. That has been one of the benefits of the agreement in a European context. At least we have brought the legislation forward.
I fear that the Opposition must take their full share of the blame for the delay. Had they not voted as they did on 13th December for one of the most longwinded and archaic processes of election—namely, the first-past-the-post system—we could have had elections in June without any shadow of doubt. Therefore, it is incumbent upon them, having produced part of the delay, to vote for the motion tonight.
It seems that the Opposition were far more interested in debating their own electoral prejudices than in having elections in June 1978. Why else did they have a three-line whip on a free vote? I believe it essential that as a country we discharge the obligation into which the Government have entered and for which the House of Commons has voted by an overwhelming majority on two occasions. That is why I believe we should have the timetable motion, which will get this legislation on the statute book.
The matters that have to be discussed could have been apportioned slightly differently. Some criticisms can justifiably be levelled at the Government Front Bench for not seeking discussions with the opposition parties on how they would like to see the debate arranged. That was a disadvantage.
Providing that we do not have a repetition of squatting in the Lobbies by Government supporters or anyone else, I believe that the timetable motion gives an opportunity to have a debate on the issues that are left for debate by the House, and will enable us at long last to get this legislation on the statute book. Therefore, my colleagues and I will be voting for the motion.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: There have been two very distinguished speeches in the House this afternoon, one by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) and one by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The speeches from the Front Benches were not very distinguished at


all. One avoided putting any arguments why we have to have a guillotine. The other, to use the words of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), was pathetic and befuddled. It explained the position of the Opposition on this question. They are pathetic and befuddled.
For the Government and, particularly, for the Opposition, the devastating case made by the right hon. Member for Down, South has absolutely no answer. Both are in a state of complete and utter confusion.
I want to take up some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He made the point, at considerable length, that the Prime Minister had given commitments on behalf of the Government. It is a very strange situation when a group of politicians from various Governments in Europe get together and make commitments to each other without necessarily getting the commitment of their own political supporters and their own people before making their commitments. I do not want to rake up the arguments over the referendum, but it is a fact that during the referendum campaign the question of direct elections was not made a central issue and was hardly ever discussed. However, the Labour Party has discussed the question of direct elections at two annual conferences. Whether or not the Government Front Bench like it, the conference has taken a very clear decision on the question. It has said twice that it is opposed to direct elections.
I do not believe that any of us in the House—unless we stood as independents—would ever have arrived here by merely our own efforts. We arrive here by virtue of being members of a party. I know that I am in the House because my party and its members go out and work for me and urge the people in my constituency to vote for the Labour Party, and I happen to be the candidate. One cannot ignore one's party people, upon whom one relies. They make basic policy decisions.
But that is what has happened. My right hon. and hon. Friends have ignored totally the views of the party. Frankly, I though that it was bad enough—it was pretty bad—that they should have ignored us to the extent of bringing in a direct elections Bill in any case, but from the Labour Party's point of view.

then to put a guillotine on it adds insult to injury.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that we had had long discussions in the House on the question of the principle of direct elections. I do not deny that. I do not think that they were all that long, but we have had such discussions. However, at this stage of the Bill it is not a question of the principle. That was discussed on Second Reading. One is now discussing the detail of the Bill and how it will operate. I should have thought that what parliamentary democracy was all about was the principle that one could change some of the contents of a Bill that came from the Government in the first place. For example, I do not consider that last night I in any way opposed a principle by voting in the way in which I did on devolution. I think that the House strengthened and improved that Bill last night. That is the responsibility of Members of this House.
If hon. Members do not believe me, let me draw their attention to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said on other occasions. I have heard my right hon. Friend make passionate speeches on this matter. He made one on 2nd May 1972. He said:
I do not believe that a system of declaratory statements in the House of Commons is an effective way of governing this country.
I agree with him. I do not think that making declaratory statements is the best way, either. My right hon. Friend then said:
It has never been the principle on which this country has been governed.
My right hon. Friend went on to say:
as many hon. Members who have studied the affairs of the House of Commons will recognise … what happens on many Bills: in the course of the Committee stages of many Bills that go through this House we discover that the matters that become of greatest interest and moment are not those which were foreseen before the Bill was introduced.
That is absolutely true. It has been proved true in relation to the devolution Bill for Scotland. It is true of every other Bill that we debate here.
My right hon. Friend then went on to say:
there had been countless examples in the history of Parliament, and anyone who has been here 20 or 30 years could state dozens, of a Bill being introduced for Second Reading


and when it comes to the Committee stage the discussion moves to a quite different track from that forecast. Why is this? The reason is that the collective wisdom of the House of Commons—whether shown in party argument and debate, and there is nothing wrong with this, or in any other way—is a different kind of wisdom from that which exists in the Government, in the Cabinet or in the Civil Service."—[Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 229–30.]
Who could have put that argument better than my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House?
It is without shame that I say that I have idolised my right hon. Friend over the years. I regard him as one of my closest friends in the House. It gives me no pleasure at all to have to oppose him. It is very painful to have to do that, but I think that the time has come when we have to do it. Considering what the right hon. Member for Down, South said, I think that we can all understand the problems that my right hon. Friend has in relation to this question.
It has been said that there have been no deals with any other parties in the House. The right hon. Member for Down, South said that this was an unmotivated guillotine motion. I do not quite agree with him about that, because I do not think that any guillotine motion is unmotivated. There is always a motive. The trouble with this one is that we do not know what it is. That is the problem. That is the dark, hidden secret for which we are looking. We shall have to guess what it is.
Perhaps the truth is that there was some sort of discussion behind the Speaker's Chair with the Libs. I do not know. Liberal Members shake their heads, and my Front Bench do the same. All right—it is not that. What is it then?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend does not have to believe them.

Mr. Heffer: I know that. Certainly we do not have to believe them. However, taking them at face value, let us accept that.
Is it that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is so closely associated with Helmut Schmidt and others and has given his word? Is it on that basis that he must push this through, to show how good we are in trying to get it through the House of Commons, when most other countries of the EEC got nowhere near it? I do not know what all the rush and

fuss is about. Why are we trying to rush this matter through the House?
The last argument that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary used concerned future legislation. One thing is quite clear. Whatever that future legislation is, it will not be the programme and manifesto as laid down by the Labour Party. The reason for that is quite simple. It adds up to 14—not 14 Liberals, but we are in a minority of 14, so we could not possibly get through the legislation that is proposed in our programme and manifesto. There is no possibility of that under the circumstances. The Liberal argument that they are holding back full-blooded Socialism because of the Lib-Lab pact is a nonsense. The day that we became in the minority of one the programme went out of the window. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that to be true.
What is it about? I have a horrible feeling that we shall never know. I do not believe that we shall discover the dark secret this afternoon. I am sorry about that.

Mr. Spearing: Might it not have something to do with fisheries, the green pound, foreign political policy and the EEC? Is it not true that when bargaining in the EEC the pressures upon our Government to show willing are inevitable?

Mr. Heffer: That is a point. The quid pro quo process is going on behind the scenes all the time. This is precisely what some of us predicted would happen.
When giving evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure on 20th December 1976, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said:
I am sure it is a mild way to describe it—even so the fact that the House of Commons can be held up by a very few Members of Parliament is one of its virtues. There have been occasions, not only about holding up Bills in particular, but there have been many occasions in the history of Parliament when the House of Commons—and I do not think it applied to this particular occasion, I may emphasise—has been held up by two or three people who were regarded as cranks or maniacs or obstreperous, and very often they have turned out to be something different.
That is the essence of parliamentary democracy. We can argue and hold up business for a period of time. But on this occasion no one has been holding up business. One cannot say that cranks are involved or that anyone is being


obstreperous. The Bill could go through in the normal parliamentary manner.
I urge my hon. Friends to vote with the party on this occasion. I ask them to vote in the interests of parliamentary democracy and of the British people, to throw out the guillotine tonight and to do so decisively.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I shall be as brief as possible. I wish to address my remarks to one point—what I believe should be done in the Lobbies tonight by a convinced European who has always supported British entry to the Communities and who believes in getting direct elections as soon as possible. I am in that position myself but I began by believing that this guillotine motion should be opposed. Indeed, I argued that in private, using the same sort of arguments—although, alas, not attaining his eloquence—as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
My arguments came under three main headings. First, there is the advice which was given to me many years ago by the late Aneurin Bevan. It was that an Opposition even when they approve of a Bill which a Government are bringing forward, even though they admit privately that a guillotine is necessary, should nevertheless oppose it lest Governments, tyrannical by nature, be tempted to use the guillotine too often.
Secondly, I feel that the Government have tried to cram too much constitutional legislation into too short a time, and should not be given encouragement in this course by our supporting this guillotine motion.
Thirdly, it is no business of the Opposition to help the Government of the day to retrieve those parts of their programme which their own blunders have put in jeopardy. Still less is it the business of the Opposition to make room for new legislation which some hon. Members have called "imaginary".
By the time that this debate started I had, after further thought and discussion, changed my mind. I decided that someone who really believed in the future role of Britain within the Communities and who wanted to see direct elections would be wrong to oppose this guillotine motion in the Lobby. The principle underlying the Bill has been accepted by the House, the bit which many people

found objectionable has been removed and we are now to have a first-past-the-post system.
But perhaps the weightiest consideration of all that made me believe that it would be wrong to oppose the guillotine was that those Europeans who are looking to the Tory Party to fulfil the role which Britain can play in Europe would be misled and disappointed. I can assure the right hon. Member for Down, South that I reached these conclusions without backstair pressure, corridor chat or any other pressure from anyone whatsoever.
For it is true that many hon. Members and many people outside the House who have been devoted Europeans are disappointed by what membership of the European Communities has brought to this country. But that is the fault of this Government, although on individual points they have fulfilled one important role and have, in the words of the late Sir Winston Churchill, been "fighting their own corner", apart from that, they have taken a timid and negative attitude. They have shown a coolness which amounts to near hostility to the main concept as well as to points of detail. Above all, they have failed to give that leadership which many Europeans hoped would be given on our accession to Europe.

Mr. Molloy: The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) has made an extremely important point about giving an example to Europe and to any European Assembly. Does he agree that we are not doing that this afternoon by debating this guillotine motion?

Mr. Macmillan: Our partners are now disappointed and, in answer to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), the danger is that if the pro-European Tories support the anti-Europeans, whether in the Labour Party or on our own Benches, the European Community will believe, or might be led to believe, that the Tory Party in office might also share the timidity and near-hostility of the present government to the concepts for which it stands.
These are the reasons why I concluded that it would not be right to vote against the guillotine motion, even with the recent evidence of how this Government can gerrymander business under the guillotine. I must admit that I am less certain than I was at the start of the debate after


hearing the Home Secretary's speech. If the Minister who is to reply could give us some hope of having four or five days instead of three, I think that most of my remaining doubts would disappear. There are important matters to be discussed; on this I accept much of the argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South.
Leaving aside the Home Secretary's speech, in the rest of the debate the case against the guillotine has been made by those who are fundamentally opposed to direct elections and very largely by those who are opposed to membership of the EEC. That is why it is right that those of us who believe in the future of Britain in the Community and who are seeking to get direct elections as soon as possible, should depart from the normal duties of an Opposition. For once we must put the needs and future of the country before the considerations of parliamentary democracy in this House and regretfully and sadly go into the Lobby to support such a shabby Government, but supporting it in a wider and a better cause.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: I wish to make my position clear to the House, as I have made it clear to my Whips in private communication before this debate, because this is a fateful occasion for me.
I wish to make one observation which I hope will help to rebut the argument that somehow we are concerned only with organisation and methods and that those methods concerning the elections are of a subsidiary kind which do not merit the degree of scrutiny or the length of supervision we would give to constitutional matters such as those embodied in the European Communities Act.
If we pass this Bill into law, we shall give a spurious legitimacy to an Assembly which consists of a curious and haphazard assortment of delegates whom none of us regards as having any authority to speak for this country. Once the Bill becomes law, should it do so, it will be regarded, at any rate in some quarters, as mandating those who claim the right to speak on behalf of this country. For that reason one would like to see the Bill destroyed.
The second reason is that, as has surely been illustrated in country after country

where some form of federation or confederation has been attempted, the situation is never static. Either the federation breaks up, as has happened to many ill-fated experiments in recent years in the British Commonwealth, or, in other countries in other circumstances, the centre has become more and more powerful. Powers are drawn more and more away from the parts. I do not believe that, even with the newly inserted amendment which the Government have belatedly conceded, we can be satisfied that that will be a completely adequate safeguard that the powers that are already mandated statutorily to the European Community will not be added to, if for no other reason than that the final arbiter in these matters will be the court of the Community. It will be the court of the Community, not our own courts, that will ultimately decide whether matters will be within the powers of the European Assembly.
One can use as an analogy the early history of the United States and the way in which the Supreme Court gradually increased the power of Washington against the individual States. There may have been good reasons. That is an example, and those who believe that we are dealing merely with a subsidiary matter delude themselves entirely. There is no precedent for this situation.
Indeed, The Times, which could hardly be more fanatical in its pro-Market activities, has stigmatised the Government's guillotine as pre-emptive and as dealing with a situation which has not arisen, about which there is no urgency, or the urgency about which—whatever urgency may be said to have existed in the first place—has diminished by the voluntary postponement of the date of elections for over a year. There is, therefore, plenty of time for all matters properly to be discussed.
I shall quote from the end of the speech by my right hon. Friend now the Leader of the House in which he castigated the guillotine motion which had been brought in on the European Communities Bill. He said:
What the Government and the Prime Minister, in particular, are doing is to show full-hearted contempt for the democratic processes of this country; full-hearted contempt for the normal legislative processes of this House of Commons. The stain will remain inedible on the right hon. Gentleman for ever."—[Official Report, 2nd May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 235]
Indeed, it did so remain.
My right hon. Friend made that comment when some 10 days had been spent on two clauses in the Bill and there were to be, although the time was not adequate, a further 12 days in Committee, quite apart from Third Reading and the short time that the House of Lords added to our deliberations by a few timid amendments.
It is therefore all the more sad that my right hon. Friend should be connected with this. He has not spoken, but his name appears on the Order Paper and he therefore commits in some measure his own authority as a parliamentarian in relation to this Bill. It is sad to see him in the fearful predicament in which he has been placed. I do not want to put too much salt in the wounds which were made so deftly and skilfully by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but I must say that if my right hon. Friend persists in supporting the guillotine he will never quite recover the same reputation he has had with many of us. We shall continue to be very fond of him, and I say that not in a facetious sense because he enjoys enormous personal as well as political regard on the Government Benches as well as, in some measure, elsewhere.
I cannot help drawing the analogy, however, of his position after today with that of Aneurin Bevan after his famous "naked into the conference room" speech in 1957 when the light he had lit for radicalism for so long lost for ever at least a measure of its luminosity. In the rest of his life he never quite regained the ascendancy and authority he once had with those who looked to him to keep the Labour Party as a Socialist movement.
I am opposed to the Bill root and branch. I will not indulge in the cant of saying that there ever would come a stage at which I would support the guillotine on this Bill. I abominate the Bill. But what is legitimately distinguishable is for the guillotine to be brought in so early in the proceedings. Let me warn the Government just what they are setting a precedent for. If we are ever to have a vengeful Poujardiste Government from the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), do Ministers really think they will get any shrift out of that sort of Government when they introduce all sorts of

vindictive, anti-working-class anti-Socialist legislation? We are giving the Conservatives a precedent and we know that they will use it in the days to come. So let Ministers realise just what they are letting us in for.

Mr. Ogden: Does my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Mr. Lee) intend to try to be here, if that situation does come about, to fight such a Government across the Floor of the House?

Mr. Lee: I will tell my hon. Friend what my position is, although I had not intended to speak for long. If 10 or 12 Labour Members are prepared to form a Kamikaze squad to hold up Government legislation which I regard as a constitutional outrage, I shall join them. If I cannot do that, I shall resign the Whip forthwith and sit for the rest of this Parliament as an independent Member.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: I do not pretend that the decision that hon. Members must take tonight is anything but difficult. Some hon. Members are opposed at every point to any kind of guillotine. I understand that. Others, not unreasonably, will use this occasion to seek to embarrass the Government. I understand that. There are others—I think that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is one of them—who will use this opportunity to embarrass the Opposition. There is a fourth category—for example, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee)—who are opposed to the Common Market altogether. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman directed his speech to what we are seeking to debate tonight.
I declare that I am a dedicated European. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not address my arguments to those who do not take that view—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). I am concerned about Opposition Members who are genuine Europeans, but who have misgivings as to how they should vote tonight.
The right way to look at this matter is to ask what will happen if the Government are defeated tonight: I do not believe that they would be embarrassed. It is even possible that they would be


relieved. Defeat would rid them of difficult decisions.
Secondly, I do not think that defeat on this motion will particularly discredit the Government in the country. There is no party point to be made there.
Thirdly—this perhaps is important—if defeated I have little doubt that the Bill would be dropped.
Fourthly, if the Bill is dropped, we must project ourselves forward to the next General Election. Then I will be controversial. It is at least possible that the Conservatives will win it. If so, they will introduce a similar Bill. They, too, may find it impossible to get it through without a guillotine.

Mr. Marten: Three days.

Mr. King: I do not want to see the party to which I belong eating its own words. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury will contain himself. I know the strength of his conviction. I am not attempting to make a party speech. I believe that the cause of Europe is above party. I also believe that we cannot perpetually fiddle with constitutions. If we are to participate in the European Parliament, we must do so as a nation. It is wholly in the interests of both Europe and this country—

Mr. Spearing: No.

Mr. King: —that the Bill should be introduced by the Labour Government and be supported by both the Conservative and Liberal Parties, because it will then be seen in Europe and elsewhere as an expression of the national will. That can arise only if the motion is passed tonight.
If the motion is rejected, what happens? I suggest that the Conservative Party will bring it in again, because by that time the Labour Party is likely to be in opposition. The payroll vote will have gone. Most Labour Members will swing behind their own executive. We shall get an exclusive party situation. The mass of the Labour Party will be against the Bill, and that cannot be in the interests of Europe.

Mr. Spearing: It is the EEC, not Europe.

Mr. King: I have supported the European movement for 30 years. My memory goes back to 1946 and 1947 when Winston Churchill founded the United Europe Movement. In company with many distinguished Socialists, I was a member of that movement. In those days, different arguments were used. What saddens me is how the standard of debate has declined. In those days we talked about the European movement as a contribution to world peace. We talked about binding up the wounds of war. Great speeches were made. Those speeches were not about economics or wages. They were made as, and the movement was seen to be, a contribution to the brotherhood of man. That is a good phrase to be reminded of. It is to be regretted that the Labour Party cannot now get the brotherhood of man on the Government 10 green Benches. So far has the level of debate declined.
There are times to be party minded and times when great issues are at stake. I believe that there is a great issue at stake now. Therefore, I urge those who see this matter as I do on this occasion and only on this occasion to support the Government.

6,26 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I hope that the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King) will accept that the fact that he and I are likely to find ourselves in the same Lobby tonight is as embarrassing to me as my presence with him will be to him. We arrive at the same destination by very different ways.
I shall not take up any particular matters that have been raised in the debate. However, criticism has been made of the fact that the Lord President's name appears on the motion. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Mr. Lee) and Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to the dilemma, the difficulty or the contradiction, as they saw it, that after a political lifetime of devotion to parliamentary matters which the Lord President has displayed, he should put his name to such a motion. The right hon. Member for Down, South said that this was a "fateful day" for the Lord President. I hope that no praise of mine for the Lord President will in any way embarrass him.
I want to put on record my admiration for my right hon. Friend. He has accepted responsibility in Cabinet, taken his part of the collective responsibility and, to my knowledge, has not tried to avoid that responsibility by saying, in ways which are available to him, that he did not agree with this or that, but he had to go along with it because of others. My right hon. Friend is carrying his share of the can, for reasons which are valid to him, just as all Members for Ebbw Vale over the past century have carried their share of the can for reasons which were valid to them. Each of the Members for Ebbw Vale has decided his own fate. I believe that my right hon. Friend's reputation will stand much longer than mine or some of my hon. Friends'. I am content to leave the matter there.
I have no hesitation in saying that in this matter what is good enough for the Lord President is good enough for me. Others may have different views, but that is my view. There will be many who agree with me in the Government Lobby tonight
The debate emphasises the differences on this matter. Looking round the Government Benches, I think I was right to check my insurance policies before speaking in support of the timetable motion. It may be significant that criticism of what I am about to say will come from my right rather than from my left. But at least we stand up and speak our minds. We had our say yesterday. Indeed, my critics and supporters were in the same Lobby. Tonight we shall be in different Lobbies. Tomorrow I hope that we shall be in the same Lobby again. If we have differences to express, let them be expressed openly and clearly.
Let us see what we can agree for a start. Probably we agree that Parliament should be the place where full and careful consideration is given to important matters, and where, after that proper debate and discussion, decisions are taken. Such proper discussion was never more important than in this Session of Parliament when, purely because of the numerical composition of the House, the power of the Government to impose whatever they want at any time on the House has gone. The simple fact of life in parliamentary terms is that the Government must and do propose but that the House

of Commons may and does decide. We experienced an instance of that last night.
Naturally, I would prefer my Government to have an overall majority. That is partly what the next General Election will be fought about. However, I should not want to see the sort of massive majorities that we have had in the past when the Government of the day automatically got their way. I want a Government with a large enough majority to be effective but not so large as to be beyond persuasion.
For years, Back Benchers on both sides of the House have complained about "payroll votes". They have complained about the apparent neglect of Back-Bench opinions and about the decline of parliamentary government. No one can say that that is the situation today, especially after the events of last night. There is a fine balance between discussions and decisions, and we all have our own versions about what that balance is.
I have the feeling that in what I call the European dimension there is a danger that what the majority have won from the Government—the power to decide our own future and our fate—we shall lose to the minority. A variable majority of the House in this European dimension is in danger of losing the power that we have gained and passing that power to a minority in the House. There is no doubt that minorities have rights. So have majorities. I make no complaint that the rules of the House in the progress of this Bill, such as it has been, have enabled other hon. Members to use our procedures for purposes which they have wanted to pursue or prevent. I wish only that some minorities would be more willing to accept majority decisions, including those of the people who send us to this place. We do not have to like those decisions, but I think that we have to try to accept them.

Mr. Heffer: Would my hon. Friend apply that to the Labour Party?

Mr. Ogden: Certainly, and I should like to be able to bring in a wholesale reform of the democratic processes and the decision-making processes both of my own union and of the Labour Party.
Over the years I have become more and more convinced that we would have


better debates, better discussion, better decisions and better government if first we had a pre-legislative stage for almost every Bill—

Mr. Spearing: What has this to do with the guillotine?

Mr. Ogden: My hon. Friend must be patient. He makes his speeches in his way; I make mine in my way. If I am out of order, I am certain that I shall be told.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I am glad that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) is drawing my attention to the nature of his speech. I have the feeling that he is wandering from the subject matter under discussion. I remind him that this debate has to finish at 7.35 p.m. There will be a wind-up speech lasting 10 minutes, and there are still a dozen hon. Members who wish to take part. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pay some regard to the wishes of his colleagues.

Mr. Ogden: If the Chair or other hon. Members care to investigate the amount of time that I have taken in this Session, I think that they will find that I have taken considerably less than other hon. Members.
I am in favour of a timetable motion for every clause of every Bill. The progress of this Bill, or the lack of it, can be measured by reference to the Official Report of our debates. It seems to me incontrovertible that, unless there is a timetable motion carried with the support of the majority, the minority will be able to have its way and we shall not get the Bill.
In the past, Government supporters complained that the patronage of the Front Bench was sending hon. Members to the European Assembly and that Back Benchers did not have that power. We asked for that power to come to Back Benchers. The result has been that Labour Back Benchers now elect their representatives in Europe. This Bill will enable the power of election to the people who send us here, and I find it strange that we should be objecting to that.

Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This debate is not concerned with the Bill. We are discussing the curtailment of debate on the Bill. Surely my hon. Friend is out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members may make representations to the occupant of the Chair, but I shall use my own judgment.

Mr. Ogden: I think that what I have been saying so far has been reasonably in order.
Unless there is a timetable motion on this Bill in this Parliament, we shall not have the Bill. Instead of the majority of the House of Commons deciding what they want to happen, that power will go to the minority and the minority will decide what it wants to happen. Unless we have a timetable motion, that will be the position.
When Government supporters objected to Prime Ministerial patronage in deciding who should represent us in Europe there was objection from Back Benchers. We now seem to be objecting to the fact that the people who send us to the House of Commons should have the right to decide who they will send to the European Assembly.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Surely the reverse is the truth. This motion means that a few hon. Members can prevent the majority of hon. Members from debating and voting on very important amendments which they wish to debate and vote upon, and that is handing over to any obstructive minority the right to stop right hon. and hon. Members voting on some crucial amendments.

Mr. Ogden: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) will no doubt make his own judgment on the progress or lack of it so far.
A guillotine motion is supposed to concentrate the mind. Apparently—because we have had long discussions even on the Scotland Bill—it does not do so always, and decisions are not always seen to be as important as discussions.
One of the reasons advanced by a number of my hon. Friends for opposing this motion is that the Labour Party Conference is opposed to direct elections. That is a fact of life that we have to recognise and judge. However, a number of hon.


Members present today were Members in 1966 and 1967 when there was a Bill before the House to provide for a modest degree of reform of the other place. It was in the 1966 Labour Party manifesto.

Mr. Heffer: No, it was not.

Mr. Ogden: The 1966 Labour manifesto, in Part V, Section 2, paragraph 4, under the heading "Modernising Parliament", said:
Finally, legislation will be introduced to safeguard measures approved by the House of Commons from frustration by delay or defeat in the House of Lords.

Mr. Heffer: That is not the same thing.

Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we get back to the subject of the guillotine?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) is going wide of the subject matter under discussion. He must show some regard for other hon. Members who are waiting patiently to speak in this debate.

Mr. Ogden: It has been suggested that I should oppose the Bill because it is not part of the decisions of a Labour Party Conference. Some of my hon. Friends are highly selective about which conference decisions they support or oppose. They ought not to complain if occasionally I am as selective as they are. I believe that the people who send me and other hon. Members to this place ought to be trusted to use the same common sense that they used to sending us here to electing their own representatives to represent them in Europe. That is a simple and straightforward proposition. I believe that we can trust the people to use commonsense to choose their own representatives rather than that we should do the job for them. For that reason I support the motion.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: I gather that you said a few moments ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there would be a 10-minute reply by the Government and no wind-up by the Opposition Front Bench. I understand, of course, exactly why the Opposition Front Bench has decided on that. It is because of their generosity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is being unfair. I was trying to be helpful. I ascribed no reasons. It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to try to deal with reasons.

Mr. Marten: Perhaps my lead-in was unfortunate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I would be glad to sit down now if my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) would agree to take 10 minutes at the end of the debate to answer the questions put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Many important questions were asked, and the Opposition Front Bench have a duty not only to vote against the motion but to answer the questions put in the debate. We want to know. My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South put a whole string of questions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King) asked what would happen if the motion were defeated. The answer is that the Govenment would bring in the guillotine again, but providing for four days or five days more for the Bill. Then we would vote again.
I suggest that my own party does not like the amount of time allocated. My right hon. and hon. Friends could vote against it for the good reason that it allows only three days. It is not anti-Europe to do that or to say that there should be four days or five days and not three days.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South said that the Europeans would not understand. Can I really believe that? Are they so stupid that they cannot read the papers?, Or would he go over to Europe and explain, in simple language, that he believed that it should not be a three-day guillotine but a four-day guillotine and that that was why he voted against it? I am suspicious of his argument.

Mr. Evelyn King: My hon. Friend does not understand what is being said. What I have said, and cheerfully repeat, is that in this matter, and in many others, Great Britain, partly due to its own efforts, is mistrusted in Europe because again and again we have gone back on our word. This may well be another example where the country may be said to have gone back on its word. That is not a good thing.

Mr. Marten: That is typical of European movement propaganda. It is time that some of the people in the European Movement really spoke up for Great Britain—and I include in that the Conservatives among them. It seems to me that Europe and European fanaticism have become more important in our case than getting the Conservative Party back into office. All this stuff about Britain getting a bad name is passed around amongst European intellectuals—well, not exactly European intellectuals but Common Market enthusiasts. One says to the other "Britain is getting a bad name—we are dragging our feet." So it goes round and round.
This is why I am waiting to hear from the Conservative Front Bench. For months its members have been criticising the Government for dragging their feet over direct elections. Yet now we know that Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and Holland have not felt able to decide even on the system that they will use. Why should not they have attacks made on them for dragging their feet? If those on the Opposition Front Bench do not do that, we can fairly accuse them of double standards.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends who will vote for the guillotine whether they really think that three days is enough. The motion would mean that a total of six or seven days would have been spent in Committee on a major constitutional Bill. If my right hon. and hon. Friends think that that is enough, so be it—they will vote accordingly. But I cannot believe that any Conservative will think that. Our Front Bench members have been saying long and loud that this is an important Bill, yet suddenly they want to limit the Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading to a total of three more days. Is it really such an important Bill then? My right hon. and hon. Friends must think about this again before they vote tonight.
My Front Bench colleagues must also remember that if they vote for the motion they will have set a precedent for what they will do in government when imposing a guillotine on their legislation. I think that the electorate ought to take note of that. What those on the Conservative Front Bench do tonight will be seriously looked upon by the electorate. If they

are so enthusiastic about Europe, they should look back on the European Communities Bill when the guillotine came down. They should turn their eyes to what happened to Mr. Roy Jenkins.
How did Mr. Roy Jenkins vote on that occasion? He was in the Labour Opposition, and he voted against the guillotine motion. Yet he really is a European. Look where his vote against the guillotine has landed him—the lush fields of Brussels. I ask my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to follow the example of Roy Jenkins.
Much has been said about why we should have the guillotine. I believe that it is part of the Lib-Lab pact, and as a Conservative I want to see that pact broken. Do those on my Front Bench want to see it broken? If they do, they should vote against the guillotine that the pact wants.
Again, I understand from the Leader of the House that the Government want more time to introduce Socialist measures or whatever it is. What are these measures? The Government want extra time to make room for the Private Members' Bills that we had this Friday and that we are to have tomorrow and in about three Fridays' time. Those Bills will be opposed by the Conservatives. The Government want to give them Government time. Thus, by voting to squeeze the passage of this Bill down to three days more the Opposition Front Bench will be providing the Government with extra time to help through those Private Members' Bills to which the Conservative Party objects.
I have heard the argument used—it was made to me in private—that a Tory might want to vote for the guillotine because it would allow the Government to have extra time to introduce really Socialist measures. Then, at the next General Election, Conservatives could say "The Government are more horrid than we thought because we allowed them this extra time and this is what they did." If that is the attitude, if that is why some of my hon. Friends are going to vote for the guillotine, politics has gone damned sick.
This has been a debate about Parliament and parliamentary powers and not really about the Common Market. I am glad that it has not been about the


merits of the Common Market because I believe that, throughout the country, there is spreading very swiftly something that I call "Euro-nausea". A vote for the guillotine tonight, particularly if supported by the Conservatives, will only increase Euro-nausea about the Common Market.
Finally, I remind the Opposition Front Bench of the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) in the debate on the guillotine motion on the Scotland Bill. He was leading for the Opposition. I address these remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). My right hon. Friend said:
Some hon. Members went so far as to speak against the Bill in the House but to vote for the Bill in the Lobby … I myself … think that this sort of practice will not raise the standing of Members of Parliament in public esteem. I think that it will give rise to cynicism, and I am doubtful whether it is a development which is good for the House.
I agree with every word. I want those who have expressed criticism of the motion to vote against it.
My final quotation from that very good speech by my right hon. Friend is this:
The long success of the genius of our unwritten constitution has always been in part the respect in which all parties and all people have held our institutions, and Parliament especially, and the rules, conventions and traditions surrounding them. If those rules are to be put on one side, we must weigh very carefully what we are doing and the risks that we are running with our trusteeship of the liberties of our people."—[Official Report, 16th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 596–7.]
Those on the Conservative side who vote for the guillotine tonight will be forfeiting the trusteeship of the liberty of the people of this country.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: Much of what I wanted to say has already been said, and in view of the suggestion that we should keep our speeches short, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall endeavour to do that.
Some of the newspapers of this country and some right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches have said this afternoon that those of us who are not particularly enamoured of the European Economic Community and the Rome Treaty are ipso facto anti-European. That is a most contemptible canard to use in

any argument about the unity of Europe or anything else.
It does not necessarily follow that those who believe that the EEC is not the right sort of instrument for creating European unity are therefore anti-European. What I ask about direct elections is: to what and for what? I believe that the intention is to give a mantle of respectability to a powerful Commission that is answerable to no one—not even to the directly elected Assembly which might come into being.
In the nature of our constitution it is possible, I confess, for a determined Opposition to hold up public business. I do not know any of the examples where Oppositions have succeeded in holding up any form of business absolutely indefinitely, but in this instance—[Interruption]. Someone has mentioned the House of Lords. In that case the Lords were successful in destroying a non-democratic and archaic system, and that was their credit.
This guillotine, in my opinion, contains all the dangers of a tyrannical majority rule, with an added threat of being progressively used to curtain the rights of Private Members. If direct elections to the European Assembly take place and the Assembly is accordingly established, there may then well be some hon. Members who may wish that they had opposed th guillotine motion tonight. I believe that it will be used in future against this House of Commons. It will be said that we have used the guillotine on the very important issue of direct elections, and that therefore we cannot oppose its use in regard to any legislation from the European Assembly which comes before this House.

Mr. Ogden: The simple point is that a determined and able minority of Members of the House, by using the procedures of the House, can get its way against the majority, unless the majority uses the procedures available to it. I quoted the example of the failure to reform the House of Lords in 1969.

Mr. Molloy: Not a word has been said about the issues that we are to examine. It is all supposition. Surely this is a most dangerous precedent. Indeed, it ought to be enough to change my hon. Friend's view and persuade him to join us in the Lobby against the motion. On an ordinary Second Reading, it might be


said "We will not have a debate. We want to have a vote straight away." Is my hon. Friend in favour of that? If he is, he should stick to his views and vote for the guillotine.
The so-called European election debates in this House are important to the people of this country. They have a right to know our views on all aspects of these questions. On all issues concerning the Common Market there have been massive majorities in this House. It might well be that in future no minority group will ever be allowed to express itself. The more one thinks about it, the more contemptible the proposal seems to be. I should have thought that in this House of Commons, irrespective of how tiny a minority might be, there should never be any use of tyranny by a majority to crush it, but that, it seems to me, is what we are in danger of having. Up to now there have been no debates on some issues and curtailed debates on others, and yet this could all form part of the ultimate legislation affecting Great Britain's representation in an international body.
It has been suggested that we must have this measure in order that Great Britain may honour certain assurances which have been given to other members of the Community. It has been made transparently clear this afternoon that some of the other countries, far from being ahead of us, have not even caught up with us in their preparations for direct elections.
What an appalling example we are giving in this ancient House, of all places. It is never right for Opposition groups to use powers, conferred on them by the constitution, in order to deny the right of the Government of the day to govern. That has to be said. Possibly the use of a guillotine procedure may be justified if there has been abuse, but that abuse must be seen to have occurred. We must be able to read of it in the columns of Hansard. That abuse must not simply be assumed by anyone sitting on the Government Front Bench. If it is merely assumed, those who make the assumption are showing that they have no longer the democratic right to sit there.
This is a very serious issue and I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they must exercise great care when seek-

ing to introduce guillotine measures. On this important issue of direct elections, they have no right to claim a mandate to restrict or forbid discussion in this House. If any of my right hon. Friends or anyone else in this House claims to have such a mandate, let him stand up now and say so. Let him stand up and say "I have a mandate from the people who sent me here to obstruct any discussion and curtail any examination of the question of direct elections to the European Assembly." I do not think that anyone can say that. That is why this proposal ought to be killed.
No one has the right to deny to those who disagree with the EEC the opportunity to put the views of millions of people. On the question of the Common Market they might be a minority, but nevertheless there are millions of them. The people were never asked whether they wanted to go into the Common Market. They were only asked whether they wanted to stay in. Although they certainly said "Yes" to that question, many of us are of the opinion that, given a fresh opportunity, they would give a contrary answer.

Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman remind us how long he was a Member of the European Parliament and what his views were then on direct elections?

Mr. Molloy: Yes, of course I have been a Member of the European Parliament, and that is what qualifies me to condemn it so completely. I know the uselessness of it. I would not mind getting back there if it gave me the opportunity to continue to point that out. The hon. Gentleman's question is indicative of the dictatorial nature of the whole thing. The attitude is "How dare you come to the European Parliament and question what is going on here?" That is a fine democratic attitude to adopt, I am bound to say. If we go on in this way we shall move beyond the almighty powers of the European Commissioners. We shall find that they will be claiming the title of all-powerful European commissars. Some of us are very anxious and concerned about that.
Decisions made outside this House are being used, it would seem, to determine the time that we are able to spend here in discussing vital issues. The people of


our country want to know what we are doing in this House and what our views are on this vital question, yet this afternoon we have a guillotine motion before us which has been demanded not by this House but by the politicians of other nations. I find that also a very difficult thing to accept. Too many of our debates on EEC matters have involved the guillotine. I should have thought that the guillotine was hardly the imprimatur of free men, a free Press and a free Parliament.
The Commission's decisions, which seem so powerful, and the Assembly decisions, which are ignored, are all detrimental to Europe and to Great Britain. Too many of our examinations and debates involving fundamental features of the EEC have been guillotined. The attitude has been to guillotine any discussion whatever on the Common Market and the EEC. It is now right that we in this House should guillotine that reprehensible and anti-democratic attitude.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: This is a rather more momentous occasion than is perhaps appreciated by some hon. Members. It is also a difficult decision for some of us to make. For some other hon. Members it is a very easy decision. Those hon. Members surrounding me at the moment dislike the EEC, dislike direct elections, dislike the guillotine and dislike the Opposition Front Bench. Therefore, they knew perfectly well what to do without very much soul searching.
But for those of us who feel that it is inevitable that this Bill should be guillotined, yet who regard three days as inadequate, it is a very difficult decision indeed. If I thought that by voting against the guillotine we would get another, proper guillotine very soon, I would do so, but I am quite persuaded that if this vote fails tonight the Bill will drift on for a day or two, will then be dropped and no further guillotine will be introduced. That I believe to be a common impression among hon. Members on both sides.
That being so, the conflict of loyalty is extreme. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out so eloquently, it is quite true that this is a serious precedent. There has

been no accusation of filibustering or no suggestion that in the last Session of Parliament the details of the Bill were discussed in any way apart from the general principle, thus contrasting this guillotine with those imposed on the devolution Bills.
This is a precedent. The question is whether one can swallow that precedent. Such was the seriousness of the pledge that we gave to our European colleagues in 1976—unnecessary as it was at the time, but nevertheless given—that the Government are now rightly saying, "Unless we have the guillotine and have it early, such is the state of the programme and such are the needs of the mechanisms of direct elections that we cannot fulfil that pledge even in 1979."
We must accept that even though we may have doubts about it. We may think that the guillotine should perhaps have been introduced a bit later and that it should have been longer than three days, but we are in no position to say that because we have doubts about it we can risk the unfulfilment of the pledge that was given by the Government in Rome in 1976.
According to the Foreign Secretary, the Government were bullied into giving that pledge, and that was perhaps a reason why it need not be fulfilled to the letter. I should like to know what form of bullying took place at that meeting of the Ministers. Was it physical? What sort of intimidation was there? I cannot imagine that the then Foreign Secretary—the present Prime Minister—is the sort of man who is likely to be bullied. Yet that is what the Foreign Secretary is on record as having said. It is a most extraordinary statement.
I return to the question how one can swallow this precedent. One must admit—this was touched on by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden)—that, like it or not; I do not like it—timetables will become a more frequent feature of our lives in this House than they have been in the past, and that what we must do is get together and make them more tolerable.
The first thing we should do when a timetable is imposed is to limit the amount of time for individual speeches, otherwise the timetable can be wrecked. That concentration of the mind which


is said to one of the virtues of a timetable is not achieved if it is wrecked by Members speaking at inordinate length, whether Ministers or otherwise, and taking up precious allotted time.
Secondly, I believe that this necessarily implies that every clause must be given a ration. We cannot simply bundle a lot of clauses together, discuss one and not discuss the remainder. Above all, if this desirable rationalisation and reform is to take place, it implies that there must be an effective Second Chamber. To my mind that is almost the most important proviso.
That is what worries me about this precedent. I fear that we may have a precedent for guillotines in future that does not contain the necessary safeguards that I have mentioned. However, that is the way—by accident and step by step—that this House reforms itself. Reform of the direct full-frontal-attack type—such as that delivered by Mr. Richard Crossman—always fails. What happens is that the flood comes in almost imperceptibly leading from one accidental step to another.
No one should be under any illusion but that tonight this is a step towards more timetables. I believe that we must take this step without being terrified of it. We must ensure that such a reform becomes tolerable to the minorities. I have indicated some of the ways in which that might be achieved.
I would ask those of my hon. Friends who may be frightened of this precedent not to be frightened of it but to face the future and to accept the need for reform, because I regard this as reform. I have never thought that a proper timetable, agreed in advance, and with proper time provided, was an objectionable feature.

Mr. Powell: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is commending the principle of the guillotine on the basis that proper time might be allotted, can he contemplate what the guillotine motion on the Scotland Bill would have looked like, and whether it is conceivable that a Government who wanted to force it through would ever introduce such a guillotine motion?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It would be a very long guillotine, but it is a ridicu-

lously long Bill. I dare say that if a Bill were long and complicated there might be no timetable. But that is a difficult thing to imagine. However, the possibilities of that have diverted me from my great peroration which I undertook to deliver within eight minutes of getting to my feet.
I think it important that this country should honour obligations solemnly entered into. I firmly believe that without a guillotine we cannot so honour those obligations. I am desperately sorry that the Government have seen fit to put all of us in a great intellectual difficulty and ferment, first, by delaying the Bill so that it needs a guillotine and, second, by providing such a stingy amount of time for what I still believe are important subjects to be discussed in Committee.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Colin Jackson: I shall try to follow the example set by the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and keep my comments down to eight minutes. Looking round me at some of my hon. Friends, I believe that it may be difficult to continue even for that long.
I hope that I shall make some relevant comments, although I cannot hope to emulate the ebullience of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) or the wit and biting humour of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). What has been done by those who oppose our membership of the EEC so far has been perfectly correct in procedural terms. I should be the last person to deny that faction their rights provided that they allow me to have my rights and to express my point of view.
However, my fear is that this debate will prolong itself indefinitely. I well remember the Bill that was introduced to reform the House of Lords. That died a natural death—and thank God for that—but on this Bill it has been said many times that we have commitments to honour in Europe. Therefore, this Bill should be passed.
I believe that a period of three days for the remainder of the Committee stage is too short. I do not believe the Government have yet consulted those who oppose the Bill about the amount of time to be allotted.

Mr. Spearing: No, they have not.

Mr. Jackson: It is a pity that such consultation did not take place, because some kind of compromise could have been reached on the timetable motion. That would have made things easier—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will refrain from intervening from a seated position because it makes the debate less interesting, especially when I cannot hear what is being said.
I wish to make a few comments about the Opposition's behaviour on this Bill. I have watched the behaviour of the Opposition over the years, and well remember their activities in mid-1965 when they adopted the cowboy procedure of rushing into the House at 2.30 in the morning, after they had refreshed themselves, and attempting to ambush the Government. They were an ebullient lot, but the situation is very different today. They sit in silence because they were told by the former Conservative Prime Minister to be good Europeans. Therefore, they feel obliged to vote for direct elections. I suspect that many Conservative Back Benchers would love to contribute to this debate and to continue these discussions. However, although this is to be a free vote, we know that the word has gone round on how they are to act.
I shall not be particularly comfortable tonight when I vote for this timetable motion, but it is always difficult to be comfortable on any matter. My main point is that I hope that this Parliament will have time to cope with other business that is of great importance. There are many other measures that could be debated. If we had less legislation on other matters, we could have one-day debates on the inner cities, single-parent families, unemployment and environmental pollution. We must seek to provide time to discuss these important matters before the Budget arrives, at which time we shall be considering the subject of income tax relief.
I do not wish to detract from the brilliant speeches which have been made in opposing this motion, and I believe that the time could have been extended and that consultation should have been carried out at an earlier stage. However, if we deal with these matters in a reasonable time, there will then be time avail-

able to deal with other matters of which the Government could be proud. I am referring to the type of subject which Back Benchers are so good at raising.
During my time in the House I have been extremely interested in the subject of foreign affairs, and I had hoped that a good deal more time would be devoted to the subject of Belize, but because of all these other activities we have not had an opportunity to debate that important matter, or the situation in the Middle East, the important developments in the position between the United States and the Soviet Union and other vital subjects. It is time that we were given time to discuss those subjects.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I propose to take the unusual course for an Opposition Member of voting for a Government timetable motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who so ably spoke for the Opposition, pointed to the dilemma that we face. I recognise that dilemma. However, I did not recognise the ridiculous parody of that dilemma which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) put to the House in his attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. The right hon. Gentleman got as near as parliamentary practice would allow to accusing the Leader of the House of hypocrisy in seeking to support the guillotine. But surely my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and I—and this applies to many hon. Members on this side—would be guilty of equal hypocrisy if on a Bill which we have supported throughout we suddenly swung round and voted against a timetable motion, a motion that is necessary if the Bill is to reach the statute book.
The position of the Opposition throughout our debates, which I have attended religiously, has been to criticise the Government for delay in producing the Bill. We believe that we are failing to fulfil important international obligations because the Government are failing to give enough priority to presenting the legislation that will achieve those ends. I am delighted that the Government are finally recognising the urgency of the situation from the point of view of this country in putting this timetable motion before the House.
Nobody has accused those who are against the Bill of filibustering, and I do not wish to bring any acrimony into the debate. However, I have attended all the debates on this Bill and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that if we do not agree to such a motion the prospect of the Bill ever reaching the statute book this Session will be impossible.
Would it matter if that were to happen? Some hon. Members have pointed out that, thanks to the Government's delaying tactics, there is no real prospect of our holding the elections by the target date. However, I believe that it still matters that we should be seen by our Common Market partners as taking a responsible view and not prolonging the situation any further. I do not think a sufficient number of hon. Members appreciate how much damage our responsibility for the delay is causing to this country's standing in the Community in the eyes of our partners.
Dealing with a party point, I do not think some of my right hon. and hon. Friends realise how much any contribution to that delay will damage the reputation of the Conservative Party as a European party in the eyes of our European allies if we are seen suddenly to be departing from the support which we have always given to the European concept. Any further delay would reinforce and underline the disillusion that is felt with Britain as a member of the Community. This disillusion damages Britain's position in the EEC, especially as it arises as a result of the Government's behaviour when the Government have had the responsibility of leading our nation in the Council of Ministers. But if the Conservative Party were to be seen to abandon the European commitment and to act on short-term party politicl cosiderations in an irresponsible way, that would damage our country's position even further.
It is disappointing that we are held in so low a regard by our EEC partners, but this also has practical consequences as those who oppose our membership of the EEC should also appreciate. In a number of matters we must all seek to protect Britain's interests and there are

concessions to be won for Britain in the policies that are pursued in the Common Market. The decline in our standing in the Community has led to a decline in our influence and ability to get things changed in our direction. We spend much time here debating the changes that we should like to see in the agricultural policy, fisheries, the Social Fund and the Regional Fund, the need to move through a transitional period on problems such as drivers' hours, the need for an agreement on steel to meet our needs, and so on, and I personally would like to argue to our partners, for example, that we are not obliged to change our mile posts to show kilometres.
I shall argue that on a future occasion, but the point is that there are British interests which pro-Europeans are as prepared to defend as are the anti-Europeans. The Government cannot win concessions from our partners as long as they doubt whether we share the same long-term commitment to the Community. Ministers who thump the table in Europe come back here to a few easy cheers but often with precious few concessions for this country from the Council of Ministers. That will remain the position if we continue with a nationalistic and obstructive approach.
We have reached the stage where we should have a sensible timetable to allow adequate debate on the small parts of the Bill that are left following the decisions that the House has already taken. I shall not repeat the Home Secretary's argument which illustrated that the back of the Bill has been broken and all that is left are matters that have been discussed already or are in line with the Representation of the People Acts.
Important matters were raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) on the question of guillotine motions, particularly on constitutional measures that are taken on the Floor of the House. It is a significant breakthrough from the normal Pavlovian reaction of Oppositions that we are prepared, given good reasons, to support a timetable motion when we believe that it is justified on its merits.
There has been considerable discussion on whether guillotines should be permissible on constitutional measures. As long


ago as July last year the Prime Minister said:
I begin to despair of any constitutional change—whether on devolution, reform of the House of Lords or direct elections—ever being able to gel through this House without a guillotine."—[Official Report,6th July 1977; Vol. 934, c. 1266.]
That is right. The motion underlines the inevitability of that fact. It is not possible to get fiercely contested legislation of any kind through a Committee of the whole House without a guillotine or timetable motion.
My hon. Friends who want to consider the position in the House of Lords need not imagine that they will be able to push through a reform of the second Chamber if the legislation is taken on the Floor of the House unless they introduce a timetable motion. The choice is to take great constitutional matters on the Floor of the House where the whole House can take part and where the business will have to be timetabled unless Oppositions are always to talk it out or to send such measures to a Committee upstairs.
I prefer the former course which gives all hon. Members access to the debate in Committee. An inevitable consequence to support a timetable follows for those Opposition Members who fully support the underlying purposes of a Bill. I hope that the three days allowed for discussion of the Bill will bring terse and disciplined debates and that we shall not follow the usual parliamentary practice of opponents making even longer speeches so that they can claim at the end of the day that they have been gagged and robbed of time, supporters talking endlessly in an attempt to talk out amendments or to prevent others being reached or even Government Ministers sitting in the Lobbies in an attempt to avoid debates.
I hope that the House will underline the sensible conclusion that was reached when it gave an overwhelming majority to the Bill on Second Reading.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I shall be brief. The Home Secretary has allowed me two minutes for my speech, and he knows that I do not support the motion.
This is a black day for parliamentary democracy and the powers of this House. We have heard from various hon. Mem-

bers, particularly the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), that they believe that it will be all right for gerrymandering to occur on this guillotine, even though they did not like what happened yesterday. That was the direct implication of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said that on this guillotine he was prepared to allow the House to cut corners in connection with the Boundary Commissioners' powers and the right of hon. Members to bring to the House the representations of their constituents.

Mr. David Howell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: No. It is on the record. The hon. Gentleman said that he was prepared for corners to be cut on this measure because it concerned Europe.
The Home Secretary gave no reason for the guillotine. In the absence of reasons, it is clear from what other hon. Members have said that this or any other Government will be able to abuse the procedure and use this motion as a precedent. There will be no defence for Back Benchers. At 3.30 p.m. yesterday the Government wanted, under the guillotine, to carve up Back Benchers' time by a misuse of the Business Committee. The Leader of the House had to desist from moving his motion. Even after a guillotine we saw what was referred to as the small clique in the Business Committee, backed up by the payroll vote, attempting to manipulate the little time available to Back Benchers so that the Executive and the Government could seek to avoid debates and votes on those matters which they opposed.
Yesterday was a black day. Despite what happened at 3.30 p.m. yesterday, hon. Members are still prepared to allow this guillotine to go through because they support Europe That makes this a black day also. I know which Lobby I shall be going in tonight. It will be the opposite one to that of the Home Secretary.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) gave the pro-Market view from within the ranks of the Opposition. He


revealed that there are differences of view within the Conservative Party. There are differences of view even within the Liberal Party.

Mr. Clement Freud: We on this Bench are single minded.

Mr. Rees: There are most certainly differences of view within the Labour Party, as has been shown by some of my hon. Friends, and within the Cabinet.
As I have said on many occasions during our long discussions on the principle of this Bill, the fact that the discussions have taken so long—we have gone through the referendum and the issue has divided friends within parties—is one of the factors to be taken into account in explaining the slowness with which legislation has come forward. It is one of the factors in the background to the guillotine.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made one of those speeches about the rôle of Oppositions and Governments which he makes so well. Fine, but I do not think that he understands that the logic that permeates so much of what he says is sometimes less applicable in the unusual situations in which that logic is not the answer to the problem that is set.
Divisions in the House over the Common Market are not the normal divisions which leave the members of each party bound together. The view of the Government is that for the reasons I gave earlier, and to which perhaps I shall return, it is our job to put forward our clear view that the guillotine motion should be passed.
The Opposition's view was not so clear. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) left no dilemma unturned. Following the recent revelations of the right hon. Member for Down, South, we shall watch with interest to see who is following whom tonight. There is no question of that on our side of the House because we know who will be following whom where. The figures are known.
The old Bill was 60 pages long. It has been reduced to 11 or 12 pages. There are eight clauses and two schedules. We have debated the principle for 49 hours in the last two years. We have an important debate to finish on the single

transferable vote in Northern Ireland. There is an important vote on the powers of the Assembly following the new clause. The new clause did not emanate directly from Government but it had been discussed. It emerged from a discussion in the House on the best way of dealing with the situation. There were divisions of opinion amongst those considering the matter, let alone in the House of Commons. There will be votes on the schedule, but the timetable, in the event, will be seen not to be ungenerous.
We have discussed the allocation of seats before. I have mentioned the new clause. There will be interesting discussions on the procedures by which the constituencies are to be chosen. But, because we are following the first-past-the-post system, if the debate on Clause 3 stand part goes the way that it now seems, the differences compared with all the other proposed legislation will be far less and will need less discussion.
There are three outstanding issues and they will be split between two allotted days. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the amendment?".] I shall come to that in a moment.
We discussed in the Select Committee the matter of the boundary procedures which the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) mentioned, which has a bearing on the guillotine motion. It was discussed in the White Paper which the Government presented to the House, with options A, B and C. I have checked with the Boundary Commission how long it would take to go through the full procedures that we normally go through for Westminster elections. I can say that, begging the question of the bricks of the local government Boundary Commission of which the parliamentary constituencies are made, it would take two years. The factor of two years has to be taken into account when one is considering the date of the election next year. Therefore, we are talking about A and B, I think, of the suggestions that were put in the White Paper.
The Government will table on Report amendments which will introduce the affirmative procedure, the regulations about expenses and nominations which will give the House greater control. But the normal procedures are those which we have had for many years. It is a


parliamentary procedure about which we will be talking.
Whatever else happens, where there are differences of view within coalitions of ideas, despite the cement of party, of which we are so aware, we are split on the aspects of the Market. I do not hide from the Opposition that one of the concerns of leaders of my party over the past 10 years has been to proceed on a basis which prevents the split widening in a way that the Irish question caused a split in the last centry, leading to new party affiliations. The feeling was as strong as that.
My right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister have had to take

that into account. I do not hide it because it is something that the Opposition have had to take into account, too. Nevertheless, given that disagreement, on Second Reading the vote was 381 to 98—a majority of 283. Splits there may be, but the House is clear that it wants direct elections to Europe.

The Government are saying that after all the discussions, lasting 49 hours plus 17 hours, now is the time to have the guillotine motion. It will be seen not to be ungenerous, with three major debates on matters that we have considered before.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 137.

Division No. 82]
AYES
[7.34 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Concannon, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Eldon


Alison, Michael
Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Anderson, Donald
Costain, A. P.
Hampson, Dr Keith


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Crawshaw, Richard
Hannam, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Crouch, David
Harrison, Rt Hon Water


Ashley, Jack
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Haselhurst, Alan


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Davidson, Arthur
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hayhoe, Barney


Awdry, Daniel
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Baker, Kenneth
Davies, Clinton (Hackney C)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Heseltine, Michael


Bates, Alf
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hicks, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hodgson, Robin


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Doig, Peter
Horam, John


Benyon,W.
Dormand, J. D.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Blaker, Peter
Drayson, Burnaby
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Huckfield, Les


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dykes, Hugh
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Elliott, Sir William
Hunter, Adam


Bottomley, Peter
English, Michael
Hurd, Douglas


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Bradley, Tom
Eyre, Reginald
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fairgrieve, Russell
Janner, Greville


Brittan, Leon
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Fisher, Sir Nigel
John, Brynmor


Brooke, Peter
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Ford, Ben
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Buchanan, Richard
Forman, Nigel
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bulmer, Esmond
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Jopling, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Freud Clement
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Judd, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Kaufman, Gerald


Carlisle, Mark
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Carter, Ray
George, Bruce
Kilfedder, James


Cartwright, John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Kimball, Marcus


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Churchill, W. S.
Ginsburg, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Knox, David


Clegg, Walter
Golding, John
Lamborn, Harry


Clemitson, Ivor
Goodlad, Alastair
Lawrence, Ivan


Cockroft, John
Gourlay, Harry
Le Marchant, Spencer


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Graham, Ted
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Cohen, Stanley
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Coleman, Donald
Grant, John (Islington C)
Lloyd, Ian




Loveridge, John
Pardoe, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Luard, Evan
Park, George
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Luce, Richard
Parker, John
Stanley, John


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Parkinson, Cecil
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Penhaligon, David
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


McElhone, Frank
Percival, Ian
Stott, Roger


Macfarlane, Neil
Perry, Ernest
Stradling Thomas, J.


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Strang, Gavin


MacGregor, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maclennan, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Madel, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Magee, Bryan
Radice, Giles
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Mahon, Simon
Raison, Timothy
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Tierney, Sydney


Marks, Kenneth
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tinn, James


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Tomlinson, John


Mates, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Townsend, Cyril D.


Mather, Carol
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Maude, Angus
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rhodes James, R.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Mayhew, Patrick
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wakeham, John


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rifkind, Malcolm
Walker,Terry (Kingswood)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Ward, Michael


Mills, Peter
Roper, John
Watkins, David


Monro, Hector
Rose, Paul B.
Weitzman, David


Moonman, Eric
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wellbeloved, James


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wells, John


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Whitehead, Phillip


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Rowlands, Ted
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Sainsbury, Tim
Whitlock, William


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Sandelson, Neville
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Moyle, Roland
Scott, Nicholas
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Sever, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Neave, Airey
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Nelson, Anthony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Newton, Tony
Shepherd, Colin
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Woodall, Alec


Ogden, Eric
Silvester, Fred
Wrigglesworth, Ian


O'Halloran, Michael
Sims, Roger
Young, David (Bolton E)


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Sinclair, Sir George
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Osborn, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)



Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Padley, Walter
Snape, Peter
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Palmer, Arthur
Speed, Keith
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Dunlop, John
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Ashton, Joe
Durant, Tony
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Atkinson, Norman
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Emery, Peter
Kelley, Richard


Bell, Ronald
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kerr, Russell


Bidwell, Sydney
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kershaw, Anthony


Biffen, John
Fell, Anthony
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Biggs, Davison, John
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kinnock, Neil


Body, Richard
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lamont, Norman


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Flannery, Martin
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bradford, Rev Robert
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Brotherton, Michael
Fox, Marcus
Lee, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Buchan, Norman
Fry, Peter
Litterick, Tom


Budgen, Nick
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Loyden, Eddie


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Garrett, W. E.(Wallsend)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Canavan, Dennis
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McCusker, H.


Carmichael, Neil
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) 

Carson, John
Gould, Bryan
Madden, Max


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Grist, Ian
Marten, Neil


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Heffer, Eric S.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Henderson, Douglas
Mendelson, John


Cormack, Patrick
Holland, Philip
Mikardo, Ian


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Moate, Roger


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Molloy, William







Molyneaux, James
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Tebbit, Norman


Montgomery, Fergus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Thompson, George


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Neubert, Michael
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Torney, Tom


Newens, Stanley
Ryman, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Nott, John
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Viggers, Peter


Orbach, Maurice
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Ovenden, John
Skinner, Dennis
Welsh, Andrew


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Page, Richard (Workington)
Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas


Paisley, Rev Ian
Stainton, Keith
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pendry, Tom
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Woof, Robert


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald



Rathbone, Tim
Stoddart, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Richardson, Miss Jo
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Leslie Spriggs and


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Mr. J. W. Rooker.

Question accordingly agreed to.

OFFICIAL REPORT (PRINTING)

7.50 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move,
That this House doth agree wth the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their Fourth Report in the last Session of Parliament relating to the size of Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have accepted the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).

Mr. Foot: It is now eight months since the House last debated the matter, and I hope that it will help if I remind hon. Members of some of the essential facts.
The production of Hansard for the House presents difficulties of a special sort. It is currently printed in large royal octavo on machines in the St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press. The machines are about 30 years old and urgently in need of replacement. The standard of service in the production of Hansard has most regrettably fallen in recent years. That has been due partly to the age of the printing equipment used, coupled with the continuing substantial increase in the amount of material to be printed each night. There has been an astonishing increase over recent years. This situation means that it is essential to re-equip the St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press, and arrangements are in hand for doing that on the basis of the most up-to-date machines.
Our first aim has been to enable the Stationery Office to restore the standard of service to its previous high level, a level that the House has every right to expect. Even with the comparative decline of recent years it is still of a high standard, and I believe that most people will agree that it is a considerable printing feat. On the other hand, we wish to restore the very high standard, and one way in which the proposed change will help to fulfil that aim is that the slightly larger page size of A4, as compared with the present size of Hansard, will mean fewer pages being required. That in turn will mean considerably less collating and stitching and, therefore, quicker service and maximum savings in running costs. We must remember that successive Governments have placed upon the Stationery Office the responsibility of not only main-

taining an appropriately high standard of service to the House but operating as far as is practicable on a reasonably commercial basis.
The capital cost of re-equipping the presses for the printing of Hansard would be £200,000 greater in large royal octavo than in A4. The additional running costs for large royal octavo would be about £40,000 a year. Moreover, no British rotary presses for printing Hansard in its present size are, as standard, available. If we retain the present size, we shall therefore need to purchase a press of foreign manufacture. I am sure that is one of the factors that the House will weigh in its mind. If we had to take the decision to purchase a foreign press in order to be able to continue the printing of Hansard, I am sure that the Services Committee and those responsible for making such arrangements would be subject to legitimate criticisms both in the House and elsewhere. That is one of the factors that has entered into the mind of the Services Committee in making its recommendation.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that there is no standard British machine to print Hansard in its present size, and did he go on to say that it would not be possible to get a British machine purpose made?

Mr. Foot: I said that it would not be possible to get a British machine to manufacture the size that we want, and that is one of the factors that the House must weigh. It seems, from all the inquiries that we have made, that if the House stood by the original earlier decision to stick to the present size of Hansard, we should be forced to go for foreign presses.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Foot: If hon. Members will forgive me, I wish first to place before the House the facts as we see them. I believe that that may help the House in its proceedings.
When the issue was debated last May I drew attention to the fact that the proposal had been thoroughly examined by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and endorsed in its Fourth Report in that Session. Those who recall our earlier debates will know that a motion was legitimately passed by the


House asking for further investigations to be made. Those investigations took place prior to our previous debate.
Officials of the House concerned with this matter had also been consulted and had favoured the change in size for a variety of reasons. At that time it was hoped that an early decision to change to A4 would enable a new press to be established and equipped so as to be operational in the latter part of 1979. It now seems improbable that a new press could be established and functioning before 1980. I have taken a look at our previous debates, and it may be helpful to the House if I now mention some of the points that hon. Members then raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) expressed what I believe to be a sense of apprehension on the part of a number of hon. Members. My hon. Friend feared—I do not say that it was his only fear—that the change proposed would constitute a precedent affecting other parliamentary papers. I assure the House once again that the proposed change in the size of Hansard stands alone to be considered on its merits. Any proposals for a change in the size of other parliamentary papers would need to be considered similarly and debated by the House.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I have not referred to the earlier debates, but one of the arguments advanced was that installing machinery for a new A4 size would achieve substantial economies if the other parliamentary papers were changed to that size. Is my right hon. Friend now saying that that is not the intention and not now part of the argument, although it was about six months or seven months ago?

Mr. Foot: We have not yet reached that stage. I am saying that if we were to make the change, we should have to go to the House and get its agreement. That would be necessary if we were to make a change in the production of the other papers by new methods. The House would have to weigh the arguments. That does not alter the fact that the House has to take the responsibility of weighing the present arguments.

Mr. Clement Freud: Bearing in mind that the Services Com-

mittee sanctioned the purchase of a great deal of German china, why is there this sudden reluctance to buy printing presses from Germany?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that there was a certain amount of protest, and in my opinion legitimate protest, when those purchases were made. This is not a Government matter, it being for the Services Committee to make recommendations to the House, every hon. Member being entitled to his own view as to the way in which we should proceed. I well remember the furore that arose over the purchase of the china from abroad. If we had gone ahead with the proposal on the original plan and had not come to the House and said "By doing this we shall have to purchase presses from abroad", the protest would have been very strong and, in my opinion, legitimate.
One of the further reasons—I hope it is almost a conclusive reason—why we have come back to the House is exactly that. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman), who speaks on behalf of printing unions as well as others, will be able to illustrate that further if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But certainly those who do the job of printing Hansard are entitled to have their opinions known to the House, too. I have not the slightest doubt, from the representations of my hon. Friends on this matter—they have special knowledge of these unions—and the representations of the National Graphical Association, of the strength of their feelings. I have no doubt about what would be a further injury to the morale of those engaged in producing Hansard in the efficient way in which they do that if we were to go for the foreign purchase after the representations that have been made.

Mr. Freud: So there has been a change of heart?

Mr. Foot: Well—

Mr. Freud: I welcome it.

Mr. Foot: If I were winning the hon. Member's enthusiastic support, I would not want to say anything that might deter him from continuing in that virtuous path. It is almost an incitement to me to sit down immediately. However, I


shall continue for only a very brief period. It seems that I can do more for hon. Members by my silence than by oratory. I shall be happy to turn to that instrument very swiftly. I shall draw shortly to my peroration, but there are one or two other facts that I want to place on record.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), together with several others, was concerned about the convenience of the proposed size. Much of our debate turned upon that. The new size was thought to be less suitable as a book at bedtime and more likely to become stuck in letter boxes. In fact A4 is less than two inches wider than large royal octavo and, since the individual copies of Hansard will be much slimmer, they will be more readily folded than the present volumes. A large number of magazines throughout the world are already printed in A4 and I do not imagine that the commercial publishers have adopted a size calculated to discourage readership.
I know that the question of the size of Hansard is a matter of taste. All of us have a different taste. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) raised this matter in previous debates. Perhaps he has been converted.

Mr. David Crouch: indicated dissent.

Mr. Foot: I must not let my optimism run away with me. However, I know that the hon. Member strongly takes the view that a product of the proposed size is not easy to read in bed, and therefore he is against it on that account. Of course, Hansard has many assets, but can it be said to be easy to read in bed? In order get to the inside columns one has almost to tear it apart. Of course, it may improve the speeches of some hon. Members if one misses out every three or four words, but as for reading Hansard in bed, that is one of the disadvantages. I would recommend the new size of Hansard on its aesthetic merits as well as for the reasons which I have already indicated and which I believe are the overwhelming reasons why we should proceed with the change.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), who has also

shown a special interest in this matter in our various debates, was concerned about size particularly in relation to the bound volumes. At the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), to whom we all owe a great debt of gratitude for the work that he does for the House generally, the Controller of the Stationery Office has produced specimens of bound volumes of Hansard in A4 and these have been exhibited in the Library. This debate should be a better informed debate than our previous debates because of the volumes that have been supplied for every hon. Member to see for himself. Now that hon. Members have seen them. I feel sure that they will regard them as an improvement on the present volumes. However, I have always held the view that we were not asking the House to make any sacrifice in terms of taste and the form of the product. I believe that in many respect there is an improvement.
I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, West, who, with his colleagues on the Committee, has devoted so much time to this subject. For my part, I should like to leave this issue with the House for its consideration on the basis of three aspects which I regard as of particular significance.
First, we are concerned today only with the size of Hansard. Any other changes in the size of parliamentary papers which may subsequently appear desirable will be for subsequent consideration and debate by this House on their merits. I give that undertaking especially to my hon. Friend for Basildon, but to others as well.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify that undertaking? It is meaningless unless he guarantees that if that were to arise in the future he would not use the argument of precedent that we had already changed the size of Hansard and bought presses to print Hansard and it only made common sense to use the presses for other parliamentary papers. Can we be assured that that argument would not be employed and that we really would consider the question on its isolated merits?

Mr. Foot: The House will make up its mind on the merits. On this subject no one can say that the House has not exercised its will and freedom in the way in which it has wished. It is difficult


to persuade hon. Members to take a different view when they have come firmly to a conclusion on this question. I cannot say what would be the arguments presented by future Leaders of the House, if there were to be any, or what may sway hon. Members in the future. However, what I can guarantee is that as long as I am responsible, with others on the Services Committee, for the recommendations that we make to the House, we would not propose and could not propose to proceed to go for the change for other papers without coming to the House, and the House then being able to make up its mind on the merits of the matter as to whether it wanted to proceed to further changes.
Secondly, the new Hansard Press must be established on a thoroughly sound basis. From the point of view of the consumer, this House must be entitled to expect a reliable and efficient service. If we do not take this decision now, the Services Committee, which has examined the matter carefully, cannot give a guarantee that the service will be sustained even at its present level, and certainly cannot give a guarantee that we shall be able to restore the service as we would all wish. That is the considered judgment not of myself alone but of all of those who have been associated with this matter on the Services Committee.
The House itself will have to take the responsibility. If this proposal is rejected once more, then over the years there will be, we believe, a deterioration in the service for Members of the House. We must give that warning quite plainly. I say that having had consultations with those who do the job, the printers, and their opinions also have every right to be respected.

Mr. Michael English: My right hon. Friend has made a very serious forecast, because he has presumably forecast that the deterioration that has occurred over recent years in the service provided to the House would increase and that the situation would get worse. We all know that the printing industry is not very efficient, but surely my right hon. Friend is not saying that this deterioration in the past and prospective deterioration in the future is caused simply by the size of Hansard?

Mr. Foot: I do not say that it is caused by the size of Hansard. It has been caused by the machinery, which needs replacement, and the most efficient form of replacement is that which we recommend. We have gone into the matter with great care. There has been a decline over recent years. I am not making any criticism of that decline. Those who do the printing have had to contend with considerable difficulties.
The morale of the people who actually do the work is a matter that should be respected by hon. Members, particularly those who have been associated, as I am proud to be able to say for myself, with the printing industry in one form or another all my life. I believe that compositors, especially, are people whose opinion on printing must be looked at and respected. When they, too, say to us "If you neglect our advice, do not be surprised if you suffer a deterioration in the product", it is right for the House to take note, just as the Services Committee has already taken notice.
Lastly, the third reason why I urge the House to proceed in this way is that a firm decision is urgently needed. If we are to restore the Stationery Office to the previous high standards of service which the House has enjoyed, we must now give it a clear decision about this form of investment. If we blur it again, we shall have done a very poor service to the House of Commons. When we discussed this matter on the previous occasion I urged hon. Members, who listened and studied the matter and looked at it most carefully before we came to the House, to come to that conclusion.
I couple these reasons with the warning that, if the House now rejects the long considered advice of its Services Committee, a deterioration will take place over a number of years. It would be a great pity for the House to make that choice. We now have a chance to make a better choice. It was with that in mind that I brought this matter to the House.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, to leave out from first


'House' to end of the Question and add instead thereof
welcomes proposals for improving printing arrangements for Parliamentary Papers, but requires any change in their sizes to be measurements no larger than that of the present Official Report (Hansard)".
Very few facts have emerged from what the Lord President has said tonight. He made great play of the change of machinery, the problems that would arise, and the difficult choice between British and foreign machinery, but not one syllable about this choice appears in the report of the Services Committee. It was not put to the Committee in evidence. Not one word was said about it, but the Lord President has made an enormous amount of it. If there is new evidence, the Lord President and the Services Committee have had eight months to put a further report to the House. They have not chosen to do so. There is not a shred of evidence to back up what the Lord President said. If there were, the Services Committee would have produced it to help him in what is, I hope, his impossible task tonight.
The Lord President said that the proposed change to the new size stands on its own and that future decisions will be taken on their merits. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfied (Mr. Bell) rightly asked the Lord President what that would mean. He was cagey. Let me tell the House what it would mean.
First, I ask the Lord President whether the idea originated from the Services Committee or whether it was some bright idea of the Stationery Office. I do not believe that it came from the Services Committee, because I cannot find the evidence. I am sure that in a year or so's time someone in the Stationery Office will say to the Lord President "As Chairman of the Services Committee you are not really using the equipment correctly. The way to save money is to standardise all the sizes on this new machinery." The Lord President would then say to the House "I am sure that the House will not be stupid and throw away this chance of saving much more money." Whatever tone he used, that is what he would have to say.
The step towards that decision is made tonight. If we make the decision to accept

the Services Committee report, all the other battles will be lost. It is no good the Lord President saying that we should have the opportunity to take different decisions. Tonight is the watershed and the House would be well advised to remember that.
I hoped that in his conclusion the Lord President would make a reference not to reading the Spectator but to the "Ham and High" or Punch, both of which are different sizes. However, one does not carry them every day in one's pocket, whereas Hansard is a tool of our work.
The Lord President said that we have to decide three matters. The first was the size of Hansard. He said, and I believe him, that in his present capacity he would ensure that any subsequent changes would be put before the House. But does that stand up? We are taking a decision on the size of Hansard and it would be used against us on future occasions.
The Lord President said that the press must be established on a sound basis. I have not seen any opposition from any hon. Members to putting the press on a sound basis. The Lord President tried to scare us by saying that if we did not adopt the proposal we should have a deteriorating service. All we can do is to rely on the Fourth Report of Session 1976–77. That matter does not come up in that report in the form that the Lord President mentioned. I do not propose to rely on the First Report of Session 1976–77, which was an attempt to get the motion through on the nod at 1 a.m. when the memorandum had not even been printed for our convenience.
The Lord President wanted a clear decision. I agree with him. But the House thought that it had taken a clear decision before. This is the fourth time that this matter has been debated. But the Lord President will not accept the decision of the House. I hope that tonight the House will show firmly that it wants none of this proposal to change the size of Hansard.
I am not, as is popular, a permanent critic of the Services Committee. Indeed, as one who sat on the Committee for four years, I pay a genuine tribute to the hard work that it does. However, it cannot always be right. It can receive expert evidence, but the analysis of the


evidence does not necessarily mean that the expertise given to it is interpreted correctly. We must come to our conclusions from the evidence that we are permitted to read in the Select Committee's report. I say that there is no evidence on the foreign machinery aspect. If it was there, I should gladly examine it, but it is not. If it was given to the Select Committee, we are not privy to it.
I join in the tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke). I am sorry that he will have to say something as Chairman of one of the Sub-Committees, because he does not deserve any criticism. Loking at my hon. Friend's impedimenta, I am sure that he will be able to show us a delightful bound volume. I am sure that he will say that we should get away from this nasty blue colour and have a volume with a coat of arms on the front—whether it is of Ebbw Vale or Hampstead. But my hon. Friend would be the first to admit that there is nothing to stop the Committee from recommending that all future volumes of the present Hansard should be bound in a better colour than the present washed-out powder blue. He can argue about the size but not about the colour.
This saga started at 1.15 a.m. on the night of 17th–18th June 1977. It was only through the vigilance of the hon. Member for Newham, South that the motion did not go through on the nod. For good reasons, the Lord President was not here on that occasion. But even if he had been it would not have helped, because the right hon. Gentleman would still have tried to move the motion and get it through on the nod, as all Leaders of the House love to do, after midnight. I shall be glad to acquit the right hon. Gentleman of that charge, but there is no evidence to allow me to do so. The motion was tabled for 1 a.m., and if circumstances had not prevented him, he would have been there and the same thing would have happened. The debate therefore started at that unearthly hour—[Interruption.] I shall happily give way to the Leader of the House if he disagrees with that point.

Mr. Foot: I disagree with the whole lot.

Mr. Finsberg: That obviously puts us even, so we shall have to leave the House

to judge. Hansard proves that the debate came on at 1 a.m. on 18th January, and that cannot be disputed.
One of the points illustrated in that brief debate was that the only documentation available was a report. No evidence was produced. There was merely a small asterisk denoting "not reported". On that occasion the House was told that by use of the new machinery there would be a capital saving of £180,000. The Minister of State, who has sat throughout these debates and contributed to them very gallantly, "chose"—the word he used—to address the House. He made an enormous amount of the argument that there was a need for new machinery. But, as the hon. Member for Newham, South said, that was not the subject of most of the questions put in the debate. They centred on the subject of the size of Hansard, and everyone, even the Minister of State, eventually had to admit that the new machines, chosen in different sizes, could provide the Hansards that the House wanted. Hon. Members clearly agreed that they wanted the new machinery, but they also wanted the same size of Hansard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) estimated that if the change were made there would not necessarily be a net saving because there would be annual increases in binding costs of about 20 per cent. I think the figure is nearer 5 or 6 per cent., but it is an increase just the same. At 2.6 a.m. the matter was not decided, because those responsible for the Services Committee's report were unable to get sufficient votes to carry the motion
Examples were shown to the House of what might happen if the new size were adopted. Hon. Members pointed out the problems of the sizes of pockets, saying that there was an advantage in having a poacher's pocket which would more easily take some of the daily Hansards. There was also the problem of bound volumes and shelf sizes. No one mentioned that the Hansard-sized envelopes that we now use for sending the document to our constituents would not accept the new size of Hansard without its being folded. Different envelopes would therefore need to be printed.
A further problem would be that of delivery, because existing bound volumes of Hansard go through letter boxes. A


specially fat volume, taking in a busy week, might have problems in going through, I concede. There are jumbo-sized letter boxes which those of us who had the misfortune to serve on Camden Borough Council, with its great wodges of agendas, found valuable. The weekly bound volume certainly goes through my letter box.
We were then shown examples of the new size of print. The great advantage of the new size is that one would be able, for example, to see more clearly in the larger print those members of the Government who did not vote tonight for the guillotine motion. However, the type size of the verbatim text would not be the same as in the present Hansard. That could be overcome. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West will say that one could have a slightly larger pointage, but that that would mean slightly fewer words per page and, therefore, more pages. That destroys part of the argument advanced in four debates by the Lord President, the Minister of State and my hon. Friend.
These examples do not assist the House in any way. To have large names in the Division lists but a slightly smaller type in the text is the wrong priority. That is not what the House wants.
I come to the Question on 9th March. The reply to it set out many more details about the cost. The important factor there was the contention that the multiplicity of sizes could be avoided if the House took certain decisions. I suggest that the House would probably welcome not having a multiplicity of sizes. It was shown in the reply to that Question and in the debate that one of the new machines could be used exclusively for Hansard. The question arose of what would happen to the machine for the rest of its shifts, and someone put forward the rather quirky suggestion that perhaps telephone directories could be printed on it.

Mr. Crouch: It was said by me.

Mr. Finsberg: It was pointed out in evidence that the machinery would, however, need a rest, that it could not go on printing for three shifts a day, seven days a week. No doubt the House would be perfectly satisfied to have two machines printing in two sizes, but if the House

wants to retain the present size of Hansard, it is entitled to do that.
The next debate came on 15th March. We heard then bedtime revelations about the reading of the Spectator and the like. I shall not go into the question of the various bedtime reading habits of colleagues, because that would not be relevant. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) contended that if everything were standardised on the present Hansard size, there would be a capital saving in re-equipment of £360,000. That figure has never been denied. It is twice the saving that the House is being asked to accept if it passes the recommendation made by the Services Committee. In addition, there would be an annual saving of £87,000 on manpower. That was at August 1976 prices, so there has been an increase in the possible savings.
That has not been refuted. The only slight refutation came tonight from the Lord President when he threw into the pond this foreign versus British machinery argument. I should accept what he said if he produced evidence to show that we cannot have British-made machinery to produce Hansard in its present size. I accept that we cannot standardise, but I am yet to be convinced that we cannot have British machinery.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), with his customary verve and effectiveness, poured cold water on the whole idea and called for some information. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West made it clear that any new machinery would be two new presses—one for Hansard and the other for other papers.
Let us get away from the nonsense of multiplicity—one machine for Hansard and another for the rest. There is no problem in operating two different machines for the convenience of the House. If the House wants to be cost conscious—the Lord President twitted hon. Members on a couple of occasions about wishing to set an example and save money—it can save £360,000 on capital cost by standardising on the present Hansard size for all printing.
On 15th March—column 254 of the Official Report—my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who declared his interest as a director of a


printing company, posed certain questions. He made several suggestions about a special web press, a variety of sizes and a single column. But his suggestions have not been considered. There is not a word about those matters in the Select Committee's Report.
If someone has the answer, why has not the House got the answer in evidence? I do not think that it is possible for answers to be given tonight that would satisfy most hon. Members, because they cannot test them by question and answer with witnesses to ascertain whether there may be any foundation for the view that may be put to us. Until I hear otherwise, I can only conclude that the three or four suggestions made by someone with expertise have not been considered and answered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West disposed of what was said on the earlier occasion by saying that time and money would be wasted in changing from one size to another because Hansard would go on being printed on one machine. At the end of the day, the House, against the advice of the Lord President, voted by two to one in favour of more information.
The Fourth Report of the Select Committee came out about two weeks later As an ex-member of the Committee, I must be careful what I say. Having failed to deal with at least one point made by the Lord President tonight and the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Blaby and Hove, that report plaintively called for an early decision or services to the House would suffer.
No one denies that if the Lord President or the Services Committee had accepted the view of the House on previous occasions, the new machinery with the present size could have been on the way to being installed. The only concession I make on the size is that there will be more pages, because hon. Members on both sides of the House talk too much and all Governments produce too much legislation. The remedy is in our hands. If Back Benchers on both sides exerted themselves more, they might restrict all Governments to fewer outpourings and certainly to fewer Statutory Instruments coming from Departments.
The Fourth Report, shown in August 1976 prices, confirmed the saving of

£360,000 if we were to standardise on the present size. The report did not take us very much further. However, it gave us that very important figure, and I remind the House again that standardising all our printing on the existing size of Hansard would save twice as much as the Service Committee proposes by making us have this inconvenient size.
I move on to 5th May 1977—eight months ago, as the Lord President said—and I want to quote one or two remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. In his peroration he was talking about printing and he said, without interruption on that occasion:
The standard has been extremely high over many years. Over recent years there has been some deterioration in some cases—not because of the failure of the staff "—
all of us join in paying tribute to the staff, who do a hard and very good job for the House on inadequate, old machinery—
but because of the circumstances themselves and because of the great pressures on our printing arrangements. As one who has spent most of his life in the newspaper trade, I certainly believe that the printing of Hansard is a very fine achievement indeed, but each year it becomes more difficult to accomplish. If we were to neglect all the advice that we have taken on this matter to set all that aside and to say either that we insist on this size of Hansard or something smaller, and that we will accept no other proposition than that, the House of Commons would make a prize fool of itself.
I suggest that that was not quite the thing for the Leader of the House to say. However, the House showed what it thought of that comment by rejecting the right hon. Gentleman's advice.
Then the hon. Member for Newham, South put forward an even more pungent argument. The Lord President intervened in the hon. Gentleman's speech and, in reply, the hon. Gentleman said:
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and would not disagree with what he said. Perhaps he is straining a little. There is nothing in what he said with which I disagree, but surely what was referred to was not necessarily a change to A4 but standardisation.
This is where the Services Committee and, I suggest, the Lord President are trying, albeit innocently, to mislead the House.
The argument is a simple one. New machinery is needed. That is agreed. There are two types of machinery: one adopting the present size for all our printing, which would save £360,000,


and the other having machines which would have different sizes, with a saving of £180,000. For me, that is a simple argument: more efficiency with new machines in both cases, and twice the saving by standardising all our printing on the existing size. I repeat that there is no evidence that the new size just for Hansard will give us everything that the House of Commons wants.
Before I leave the argument on that day perhaps I may quote the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs). He said:
I would dispute with the Lord President that it is essential to move to the A4 size for Hansard. It will reveal to him that I have read the report very carefully when I remind him that the Controller"—
that is, the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office—
said just that. On page 2 I found the following very revealing remarks. When asked about the move to the new size, the Controller said:
'I think that there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding here. It has been suggested by a number of people that if you move to the new technology it is absolutely essential to move to the A4 size for Hansard. This is not so. The reason why we want to move to A4 size—and it is, of course, for the House to decide whether we should do this, and I should like to emphasise that—is that the machines in the new technology are in standard commercial practice produced in metric sizes.'"—[Official Report, 5th May 1977; Vol. 931, c. 671–85.]
So we are being forced to conform to metric sizes. Apparently, the convenience of the House does not matter—metrication is all that matters. We should not allow ourselves to be taken in by that argument.
No new evidence has come to the House since May 1977. I repeat as emphatically as I can that if there were a shred of evidence the Services Committee would have produced it to bolster up its totally inadequate case. But it has not. Of course, the Services Committee might produce something now, but it could not be evidence because it could not be tested by examining witnesses.
There has been no answer to the questions put on previous occasions. This is yet another attempt by the Leader of the House in the hope of being fourth time lucky. This is a House of Commons matter, and this is no way to treat the House. I hope that we decide to keep

the present size of Hansard. I hope that we shall have new machinery and will keep, with that new machinery, the same size of Hansard and save the taxpayer £360,000.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moorman: The House has always had among its membership people from the operational side of the printing industry. I am thinking of such distinguished old colleagues as George Isaacs, Will Wilkins, Sir Harmar Nicholls and Albert Murray. Having discussed this issue with one of them tonight, I am bound to say that they would be as concerned as I am that the debate should have taken the rather peculiar form that we have just heard set by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Fins-berg).
I am concerned that we should see this matter in both parliamentary and operational terms with some element of reality. What I objected to in the hon. Gentleman's speech was that it was, first, a re-run of a series of debates which hon. Members are intelligent enough to have read, if interested. If they are not interested, they will not have read them. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that there are occasions when it is difficult for Parliament to take decisions, and when there are matters associated with the running of Parliament, I am not sure that we come out very well in debate, especially when we seem totally unable to take simple decisions.
I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's detective work is good. We were given a whole series of times and Incidents, all to be found in Hansard. I am not sure that I appreciate his managerial competence. If the hon. Gentleman were able to operate as a manager in the real sense, and looked at the evidence, he would either have said, at the beginning of his very long speech, that we should not proceed, or he might have recognised that there is some advantage in the other case and listened to it. His speech was a most unfortunate presentation.
I have spent a lot of time in the printing industry, having started as a boy and been apprenticed. I have also had substantial management experience in the industry. We are talking here of practical issues. The problem is to be found in the evidence. We are debating this matter


because of the increasing volume of material. That is happening in many businesses—there is simply more work to cover. The same sort of problem can be found on newspapers. One cannot argue there too much through the night; the paper must be produced. One cannot suddenly decide to increase the number of pages in the night. The formula for that night is decided the day before—whether there are to be 16 pages or 24, for example.
But that is something that those running Hansard cannot do, because they do not know how much material there will be that night. They have to produce everything that they get from this House. It is right that they should produce it, but let us recognise the technical limitations that are imposed on those obligations.
These are very difficult limitations on the men who have to operate on this basis. There is no understandable limit to the operation. It has to be decided every night. I can only say that as a former "comp" I would not like to do that sort of work. If there is a great volume of work, those concerned have to keep going right the way through.
In the Session 1976–77, the average nightly page content of Hansard was 139. The total number of pages for that Session was 20,864. The number of pages produced in 1964 was 16,442. That increase gives some idea of the scale. We are talking more. We are asking more Questions and doing a whole series of things that 10 years ago we did not even contemplate.
Hon. Members will know what it is like to go into the Table Office just after 10 a.m. hoping that in two weeks' time one will be among the top ten at Question Time. There is simply no chance of that. One is always way down the list—never mind Prime Minister's Question Time. It is the same for every Minister that we have. This is an aspect of the practical problem that we are facing.
The information business has always been a prerequisite of Parliament but it has now taken off. That is why we are having to talk about it this evening. I have mentioned the great increase that has taken place. The number of pages increased from 16,442 in 1964 to 19,174 the

following year and to 19,731 in 1966. I have given the figure for the Session 1976–77, and my colleagues in the printing business expect that there will be an increase in the next five years comparable with that which has taken place over the last 10 years. That is the problem we face—the sheer volume and scale.
With that sort of problem facing us, we have to decide how we can cope with it. We cannot ignore it. We are not likely to talk less, although there might be some advantages in that. Certainly shorter speeches might help. How are we to tackle the problem! That is what we have to decide. Anyone outside in business would have to tackle a problem of this sort. Why should not we do so in Parliament? Those who talk about business competence should not leave their ideas outside when they come into this Chamber.

Mr. Spearing: We want very much to take account of the practical difficulties, but will my hon. Friend not agree with me that the things he has mentioned relate to Order Papers, Select Committees and so forth? We are concerned here with the daily Official Report. The additional number of Written Answers is covered by the carry-over. They are not all printed on the same day. How does he reconcile the increased size of Hansard with the fact that the House sits for exactly the same amount of time?

Mr. Moonman: I know that the point was made earlier by my right hon. Friend that we were taking a decision tonight only on the Official Report. I wish that he had gone further than this, because I do not think that it would be necessary for him to come back to the House on this issue. If the House decides tonight that we should move to A4, is that such a big decision that we have to have another debate and more repetition of arguments? Is this to apply to all the other papers?
I accept the need for some co-ordination. I do not think that that is so surprising, although other hon. Members may be surprised by it. It does not take me by surprise. If we are serious about having an element of standardisation, we have to consider the matter properly. My right hon. Friend has been absolutely fair. He said that before we could proceed there would have to be consideration


given to it on another occasion. I disagree with him on that. It is a question of the best use of parliamentary time.
There is no doubt that the increasing scale and volume of parliamentary papers give rise to serious technical problems. A colleague from the National Graphical Association came here last night and spoke to a number of Labour Members. He has spent his whole lifetime in industrial negotiations and has great experience in the industry. He has had a chance to look at the machines. His view, very simply, was that it would not be possible to increase the output of those machines. In other words, if a decision is not taken to move to A4, it simply means that we shall have to get a new machine which will print Hansard as it is now. In the printing trade we call that a "bastard" machine. That would present problems which I shall outline in a moment.
By not supporting the Services Committee recommendation a major decision would be taken by this House. It would be a costly decision over the next 15 years. Even the Services Committee has not estimated that cost. It talked about the capital cost, but it has not even understood the practical problem of what it would mean over the long term if we did not change the size.
My view is that we need to vote for the recommendation for some element of common sense. The size of Hansard is not a major political issue. The recommendation to change its size was made after taking into account all the relevant evidence on cost and efficiency. Most people outside this House would think that that was the end of the matter, but we are now into our fourth debate on the subject and we have spent as much time on this matter as on the millions of pounds involved in the reports of the Public Accounts Committee presented only a week or two ago. Why? Because hon. Members refuse to come to terms with reality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has had some experience of industry.

Mr. English: What a democrat.

Mr. Moonman: Would my hon. Friend have tolerated the sort of argument and counter-argument in his industrial ex

perience about the cost of a particular operation?

Mr. English: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is a very old friend. We have known each other for a very long time. When I first knew him more than a quarter of a century ago he always believed in accepting majority votes. The House of Commons has made a decision on this. Incidentally, it made the same decision that was made during the nineteenth century in the heyday of the British Empire and its rise and fall. All of a sudden we are told that this cannot be carried out. The only reason it has been brought back here is that people who do not accept majority decisions want to bring it back again.

Mr. Moonman: I, too, recognise our friendship over the years. All I would say is that if there is a different reason for the debate today, I do not know of it and it is up to my hon. Friend to make that point very clear. I would have thought the reason for this debate was to ensure that we took account of some of the information which we have received regarding the buyers of alternative machinery. [HON. MEMBERS "What information do we have?"] The Lord President indicated the problems associated with the cost of machinery, and I am prepared to do so in a moment.
But let us deal with this specific question. Two hon. Members have asked why we are discussing it now and have asked whether the House of Commons has made its decision. If new evidence comes to light which would make the printing and production of Hansard difficult and if the new machinery needed has to come from Germany, I believe that is a good reason for reviewing the arguments.
Indeed, if Parliament has any role in a decision-making process, surely it is important to bring this matter back to the House again. Quite apart from the time lost which could have been spent on matters of greater moment, we are hardly giving a responsible lead to British industry by rejecting the cogent arguments put forward for changing the page size of Hansard from large royal octavo to A4.
The most telling argument must be the guarantee of a more efficient service. There have been a number of occasions


over the last couple of years when debates have been held up while hon. Members rightly have been concerned about the production and publication of Hansard I regard this as the tip of the iceberg. Hon. Members complain when their parliamentary papers have not been available in time, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West has been extremely vocal on this score. But those people are not prepared to accept that those papers do not appear with proper frequency not because of industrial disputes involving management and trade unions, but because of the great difficulties in maintaining production through the night. The introduction of A4 would mean fewer pages for printing, collating and stitching, and therefore a quicker service, instead of the present situation when the service is for ever teetering on the edge of breakdown.
Let us take the argument about cost. The move to the A4 size of paper would save £210,000 in capital costs and £39,000 annually in extra handling costs. These are not great sums, but, bearing in mind the economies which are being effected elsewhere, they are savings that should be made. If anybody wishes to reject these arguments, he must stand them on their head, but certainly it is the technical considerations and the ongoing costs which I have most in mind. Those costs have not been mentioned.
Some hon. Members have continued to demand their parliamentary papers in the present size despite all these arguments. It is no good their suggesting that a special machine could be produced. Such a machine could be made, but, once again, there are costs to be met in that process. The temptation would surely be for the authorities to go abroad for that machine. Nobody has yet suggested that we should insist on a British machine; that would mean making up a highly complex set of machinery pieces, and the ongoing costs would be enormous. It is not just a matter of putting the machinery together, but the worrying factor is the substantial ongoing costs. There are a number of concealed costs, or what are known as mystery costs. One would have little knowledge of that side of the matter until one had operated the machine for a couple of years.
Let us not imagine that these considerations are unimportant, because they are

vital. The authorities would be led to one conclusion—namely, that we should have to buy such a machine in Germany. I am sure that the manufacturers in Germany would be willing to sell us a special machine. If the House were to take that decision, it would have its consequences in our having to make other excursions into the purchase of foreign goods, and there would be the same anxieties and anger expressed by many people outside the House. I repeat that the technical demands and the ongoing costs would be very great.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend was in favour of the Common Market.

Mr. Moonman: My hon. Friend had his opportunity to express his view on that subject in the vote that took place a little earlier.
The fact is that if we persist in printing Hansard in its present size, we shall have to insist on special plates being made. In some cases those plates will have to be cut down. Furthermore, we should have to use special guillotines and equipment to keep Hansard at its present size. Guillotine costs can be substantial. It would involve special settings. Therefore, we should have to face the costs involved in smaller sizes, additional printing costs and more handling costs.
We may wish to take pride in other matters in the House of Commons, but I do not think we should take any pride in having to introduce an extraordinary machine producing a document of a bastard size unrelated to other publications produced in the House of Commons or in Government Departments. This type of island mentality is worrying. We cannot tell industrialists, trade unionists or our constituents to be more progressive and to look to change when we are not prepared to accept change in our publications.
It is said that one great advantage for the traditional and historical size of Hansard is that it may be put into one's pocket. I do not go around with Hansard in my pocket, and I am not sure that one should be expected to do so. The ideas behind retaining the present size of Hansard are not logical and go against ideas that we are constantly urging those outside the House to adopt.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to deal with the cogent point which I have advanced—namely, the saving of £360,000 in capital cost as envisaged by the Services Committee. Does he refute that argument?

Mr. Moonman: The hon. Gentleman did not explain that point. I did not interrupt his speech, but I shall be happy to let him intervene again if he can tell us which savings he is talking about and in relation to which size.

Mr. Finsberg: I think that other hon. Members will confirm that I spoke at great length about the evidence given to the Select Committee—that if the House standardised all its printing to the size of Hansard there would be a £360,000 capital saving. That has not been denied. The Minister has made that point in debates and in answers to questions.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has made that point in three ways. He is entitled to do so and he put his case fairly, but let us examine the argument that he is advancing.
He says that there would be savings of £360,000 if we standardised all printing to the present size of Hansard, the royal octavo size, but he is not comparing like with like. The figure of £249,000 which HMSO and I have given is relevant only to the capital and annual running costs. The hon. Gentleman is talking about standardisation on the basis of all printing. If we standardised all our printing to the A4 size, it would result in savings of appreciably more than £360,000.

Mr. Moonman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is extremely useful to have friends.
Let us make this matter of standardisation clear to the hon. Member for Hampstead. My right hon. Friend has been much more generous to him than I am prepared to be. If we were able to bring in that degree of change in standardisation with a bastard size, it would make a total mockery of our ultimate printing. By retaining the royal octavo size we should be deferring the ultimate decision, which is inevitable. That could be delayed by 10 or 15 years because our decision

would be so ambiguous, but ultimately it would have to be made.
If it could be suggested that 50 per cent. of the printing and publishing trade were operating on one size and 50 per cent. on another, I should be encouraged to feel that there might be some relevance in the argument of the hon. Member for Hampstead, but this is not what it is all about. It is not 50–50. The Minister was right in saying that we would be setting our face against the whole operation of the British printing industry. I do not mind someone suggesting that we should do that. I respect that view. But why should we do something that is unique when we tell the rest of our industry what we think it should do and legislate for that? Why should we stick to the old size, pay the price and have the extra service? That is the question that has to be answered.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you assist me? The amendment does not say that we should stick to the present size of Hansard. It says something quite different, namely that we do not want documents that are bigger than the present size of Hansard. It does not say that we cannot have smaller documents.

Mr. Moonman: The friendship of my hon. Friend and myself is getting more and more tenuous.
There is a risk here to jobs within the industry. The present machinery at the Parliamentary Press is obsolete. Even the hon. Member for Hampstead would not dispute that. The machines are rapidly becoming obsolete. They have been running for 16 years. If they had not taken such a tremendous pounding they might have operated for 20 years. However, such is the wear and tear on them that the Press will have to be re-equipped whatever our decision. That is without a doubt.
The British printing industry has gone over entirely to A4 on new machinery. New machines to print Hansard in royal octavo would have to be ordered from abroad. We would have another national scandal like that of the German china for the Refreshment Department. It would be wrong to take business away from British industry in this way.
I have had representations from the trade unions involved, which are greatly concerned that such a decision would be made, because inevitably we should have to buy very expensive equipment from abroad. It is not just a matter of buying one piece of equipment. It is a Catch-22 situation. We should be forced to buy other pieces of supporting equipment, because one piece of machinery does not operate by itself. If anybody says that it is possible to say "On this occasion only we will have a piece of equipment and we will go to Germany for it", he is making a mistake. The printing industry does not operate in that way, whatever hon. Members may think about the industry.
We must also consider the staff of St. Stephen's Press. They work under great pressure. My right hon. Friend the Lord President mentioned that the Press had not been without its problems. Some of those problems have been due to the extraordinary strain imposed on it through working under poor conditions with the machinery that the staff have had over the last couple of years. The uncertainty of the future of Hansard printing is seriously affecting the morale of the men.
The introduction of new machines means new manning agreements. If we go for A4, there is no problem. The machinery is standard. The printing industry has a great deal of experience of negotiating agreements. The view of the National Graphical Association and of the other unions associated with these agreements is that it would not be true of imported machinery to print at the current Hansard size that there would be no problems. This could add still further to the uncertainty and the low morale.
On every rational ground our decision should be to accept the recommendations of the Services Committee and authorise the change. I do not know that anyone can adequately deal with all the points associated with the desire to change the size of Hansard. It is important that it is a very good, well researched Services recommendation. If this issue has been before the House on more than one occasion, so be it. If we have got it wrong as a House on most of the occasions, we have a chance to put it right tonight. For those who ask why, having debated it in the past,

we should debate it this evening. I say that we are debating it this evening because there is new evidence. We should be making a terrible mistake if we ignored the important information that we have been able to collect over the past few years.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: We have heard a most interesting speech from the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman). He spoke feelingly about the printing industry. He speaks with great knowledge about the industry, even though he speaks fast. He covers many pages of Hansard—a lot more than many of us do—in a matter of 10 minutes. He said that the debate was about a decision on machinery. He spoke to that text. I felt that I was about to be taken outside and sold a copy of Hansard if I was not careful, because I think he has got samples somewhere in his locker outside the Chamber.
I agree that we should consider this aspect. We have debated the subject three times and have considered the views of Members of Parliament. We have not perhaps considered enough the views of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. This matter arose from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. It did not come from any Member of Parliament. There has not been a protest about the size of our reading matter. Not a word of complaint has been said from a Member of Parliament to the Services Committee that the present size of Hansard is wrong.
The Controller of the Stationery Office said "The work load is too much at St. Stephen's Press. The presses are out of date. The time has come to modernise, and we can tell you that if we modernise it is best to modernise on a new size of paper. We would suggest we standardise on A4, the Continental size. We can buy machines on the Continent and print on the metric size paper. That would be very convenient. We could print much more efficiently and more quickly. We could deliver your production order on time, as you require, and keep up the unique standards that the St. Stephen's Press and the Stationery Office have managed to achieve."
This Parliament probably has the most excellent service for the delivery of papers, reports of proceedings and the


Vote bundle of any Parliament in the world. I take my hat off to those concerned. I acknowledge the efficiency of those who work so skilfully in such an efficient industry. At eight o'clock in the morning the papers are delivered through my letter box not al mile from here. It is remarkable. I can read my own speech while I am still in bed, if I wish. I shall not dwell on the business of bedtime reading. We have had all that. I still read Hansard in bed, and I know others who do so. I cannot give it up. I have a sort of addiction to Hansard.
Only yesterday, anticipating this debate, I wondered whether we should not reduce the size of Hansard. In the Library yesterday I put down the New Statesman. I did not pick up the Spectator, I reached out into the slot beside me, and what did I pick up?

Mr. Jasper More: Country Life.

Mr. Crouch: It was not Country Life. Believe it or not, I picked up a publication that is said to be for people who cannot read and cannot digest—the Reader's Digest. I was rather impressed by its convenient size. When I am told by the hon. Member for Basildon that we can no longer consider printing on the present size paper, I wonder how the firm that prints Reader's Digest has struggled for so many years printing in 34 countries a publication that is smaller than Hansard.
I wonder why the books that one buys to read not only in bed but elsewhere—on a train or wherever—are of the size of Hansard, of thereabouts. If one wants to decorate one's house with coffee table books, one can buy very large books, and then people admire one's reading. Such books are usually fully illustrated with masses of beautiful pictures, usually in colour. If we are to have Hansard the size of a coffee table book, I shall put in to the Services Committee for a reading stand. I shall do my reading at night standing up, as in a library. If that were to happen, we should have to change all our reading habits. However, I do not wish to be facetious. That would be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman who spoke about the urgent machinery decision that must be made urgently.
The Services Committee said that there were good production reasons why we must change. It said that new presses were needed and that it wanted to go over to the modern system of computer typesetting and lithographic printing machines. I accept that.
The Services Committee was also told "There will be further saving for you and an increase in our efficiency if you will agree on behalf of Parliament to a standardisation of page size for Hansard, the Vote bundle and other things." I do not oppose standardisation. It is rather ridiculous that we have papers of one size and Hansard another size, with a quarter of an inch between them.
We should listen to the experts who tell us that there is a need for modernisation if they are to cope with our increased demands. We should take into account the need for standardisation, but I do not accept—I may be wrong—that the experts have made a good case for the A4 page size. I have been through the evidence again very carefully. Paragraph 15 of the Committee's Fourth Report is very revealing. It says:
HMSO's desire to use uniform equipment is therefore readily understandable: standardisation on anything but Crown Quarto would be distinctly advantageous financially. To take the maximum advantage of their opportunity, however, they are anxious to move to the metric equipment which is becoming increasingly standard in the printing world generally as well as with HMSO. This means the A sizes. As the Controller of HMSO emphasised, it is not absolutely necessary to use A4 to gain advantage of new printing technology: ' we could order machines that would print Hansard in the present size, but these machines would have to be tailor-made '".
That thought has been exercised already.

Mr. Roger Sims: And so would be more expensive.

Mr. Crouch: Of course. I do not mind saying that my concern is not to suit the printer, the printers' union, the production manager or the Controller. I am concerned about Hansard users, those who read Hansard.
Who are the users of Hansard, leaving aside hon. Members?

Mr. More: Why?

Mr. Crouch: I shall come to that eventually.
First, let us consider some of the evidence taken by the Committee. The Committee was dutiful and thorough in its


work. It tried to investigate every aspect and to obtain all the answers. It sent for many people, including the Librarian, the Clerk of the House, the Principal Clerk of the House, the Editor of Hansard and the Deliverer of the Vote. I was interested in what they all said.
The Deliverer of the Vote, the man who has to produce the copy to send to the printers overnight, was rather less than enthusiastic. He did not condemn the proposed new size, but when asked for his views he said:
I need say very little. We do not much like the size from a handling point of view.
He went on to say that it would be convenient in other ways but that he would not find it very useful. He said that it would "speed up delivery of documents" but that he did not like it from a "handling point of view." As I have said, he is the man who has to deliver the copy.
I was interested to read the evidence of the Clerk of the House and the Principal Clerk to the House. They said that they accepted the A4 size. Of course, on this issue we very much respect the Clerks' views. They use Hansard. I use it for bedtime reading, but they use it in the course of their work. They did not say one word about A4 being a good size for reading. They said that it would be good if it increased the efficiency of St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press and the delivery by eight o'clock the next morning, and maintained the unique standard of Parliament in printing and delivering its papers. That is how I read what they said. There is not a word in the evidence to suggest that A4 is a good size for a reader, and I am speaking as a user, consumer and reader.
What do Members think? We have already had three debates on this subject and I am rather surprised that we are having another. Why do we have debates and votes if we do not make a decision? The hon. Member for Basildon asks "Why are you holdings things up and setting a bad example outside?" We have not done that. We have already told HMSO that we have decided to standardise on a machine that can produce Hansard in its present size. That is what we are saying now. In effect we are saying "Get on with it".
I have been criticised. I have been told " But you will cost the country another £200,000 or £300,000 ". That

extra cost will be spread over 20 years. We are talking about papers for the Mother of Parliaments. What are we quibbling about? Is it being said that we have to have a coffee-table-size book, a book the size of a London telephone directory, because it will save £200,000 or £300,000 over 20 years? Is that being said on the basis "Never mind whether you find it convenient, that is what will be nice for the printers? We should not accept diktat of HMSO, or a controller who reports to the Services Committee.
The Services Committee rightly considered the problem when it was presented to it. It knew that there was a production problem. It realised that an increasing load was being put on St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press. It said "We must look into it". After all, that is why we have the Services Committee. It sent for witnesses and papers, studied the matter, and reported to the House.
When Members were consulted they said—not facetiously—"We do not think that this is a good idea. We want to do everything to help the Stationery Office improve its service, but we do not think that it is a good idea to alter the size of our working document." I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) referred to it as our "tool of work". I still do not think that it is a good idea.
All I am trying to say is that, whilst I respect the view that there is a need for the House to give an example of how it can modernise and cope with the new problems and help the Stationery Office to deal with its problem, I think that the Stationery Office as we are its customer, must say "We can produce everything that you want." Can the Stationery Office not produce Reader's Digest?
I was not joking when I said, having referred to the evidence, that there was some evidence from the Stationery Office to the effect that it would be nice to print something else when Parliament was not sitting and that the sort of size that it had in mind was that of the London telephone directory. If the Post Office is to be a more important customer and is to determine the size of the machines and the papers that we carry about and with which we work, the


Stationery Office has got its assessment wrong. We are the first customer. Its other spin-off customers which it might pick up while we are in recess, such as the Post Office's Yellow Pages directories, are a secondary consideration. The prime consideration in this decision must be what is right for us.
I do not want to appear to be dog in the manger. It could be that many think that Members who speak and vote as I do are just fuddy-duddy and do not want change. But I do not want a document of the size that is proposed to replace the present size, which is the size that have come to like and to use.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that those of us who are not fuddy-duddy and play football for the House of Commons football team will find the new recommended size of Hansard quite inappropriate for use as shin pads, whereas the present Hansard is perfect for the job?

Mr. Crouch: Everyone has a reason for having a special love for Hansard. Before you came back to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I said that I had a certain addiction to Hansard. I can hardly put it down. If I make four speeches in a week, as I did recently—I know that you have kept a record of that, Mr. Speaker—I read Hansard repeatedly in that week, over and over again.
Seriously, however, all of us have a personal interest in this matter, for one reason or another. Much as I respect the valuable views advanced so strongly for the producers, and although I want to accept those views, above all I believe that we must accept the views of the consumers and users in making this decision.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: I intended to speak not in this debate but in the next debate. However, I have been almost forced into speaking by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman). As I have said, he is a very old friend of mine. His knowledge as a compositor is of value to the House.
However, we are in a very strange situation, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has said. We have

been a customer for about one and three-quarter centuries for a particular product of the Stationery Office. The Stationery Office has supplied our wants for all that time, but now it stubbornly says that it cannot and will not supply our needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and I have differed on political issues from time to time since we both came from Southport. One of the matters on which we differed was that he was a passionate supporter of British entry into the EEC and I was a passionate opponent of that. But now he turns round and says that he does not like the results.
On what evidence, I do not know, but I take my hon. Friend's word for it when he says that if we had to buy these machines, they would have to come from Germany. It is a tremendous comment on the British engineering industry to know that if one wants a machine that will print in a non-metric size, it has to come from a metric industrial country and that, apparently, British industry cannot, according to my hon. Friend, produce a machine that will print in a non-metric size. I am amazed. We all know about the efficiency of German industry, but it appears that it produces both non-metric and metric sizes while in Britain, because of our passion for metrication, our engineering industry has apparently given up producing machines in non-metric sizes.

Mr. Moonman: I said that it was possible to acquire the machine in this country but that it would be rather more costly because it would not be a standardised model. If my hon. Friend is so surprised about the greater range of choice in Germany I can tell him that it is simply because there is a larger outlet in Germany.

Mr. English: This is like the story of the car. More and more cars are bought each year but the increase in demand is directed to imports from Germany and Japan. In this case British industry apparently can make something in a non-metric size but only as a special, one-off job which will be more costly.

Mr. Spearing: Is not the difficulty that there is a lack of evidence? In opening this curious debate the Lord President said that we would have to go abroad to buy this machine. My hon. Friend the


Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) now says that this is not necessary. Is not this dilemma at the root of the problem?

Mr. English: We have concentrated on the subect for long enough. The point has been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon accused us of being fuddy-duddies, but that is not borne out by the amendment. We are not so fuddy-duddy that we say that we must stick to present size. We say that we do not want Hansard to be the size of a telephone directory. We want something that is small and reasonable. If the present size is awkward, let us change it to a smaller size.
Penguin Books makes £20 million a year producing small, conveniently sized hooks. That company manages to put large numbers of words in its volumes. In the spring lists we are told that the company is about to bring out an enormous paperback book costing £10 per volume.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon was very worried about jobs in the industry. He said that if the size of Hansard were larger, there would be fewer pages to put together. Presumably, if the size were smaller, there would be more pages to put together and more jobs in the industry. My hon. Friend seems a little inconsistent. There is an A5 size which is metric and smaller than the present size. The amendment does not prevent the Stationery Office from using that size.
The House does not want a large telephone directory size of Hansard. Many of us have become familiar with the present size. The poor postmen struggle to our doors and endeavour to get through the letter boxes the European Community Journal, which is a ridiculously large size and most inconvenient. It would be better if it were a smaller size. The present Hansard is a convenient size for the postman and for many other people.
What must surely appal everyone is the sheer stubbornness of those who refuse to accept the decisions of the House. This sort of thing does not improve the relations between politicians and civil servants, whether they be administrators or printers. It does not improve the relationship between poli-

ticians and civil servants if the House decides, having read its Committee's Report, to disagree with the report, but for the matter repeatedly to be brought back because the decision of the House is unacceptable. It is no good Ministers and others saying that they do not like our decision. That has been the cry of the dictator throughout the ages—"I am sorry, but a Labour or Conservative Government were elected at the last election and we do not like it." There are dictators in some countries who say that they do not like elections, and they stop them. It is fairly clear that that same attitude lies behind this whole affair. It is an irritating, stubborn, undemocratic attitude, and I can say only that I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Minister of State should associated himself with that view.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: My hon. Friend has made this charge on a number of occasions. He says that we have refused to accept what he describes as the democratic decisions of the House about the size of Hansard. I hope that he will put me right. My memory goes back to the first decision of the House which was to refer the matter back to the Services Committee for further consideration. On the last occasion there was not one decision hut, if I remember rightly, two. The first was in favour of an amendment, and the second was to reject the amended motion.
When my hon. Friend says, as a result of that, that individuals are being stubborn and are refusing to accept the democratic decisions of the House, he invites me to reply that one would he prepared to accept the decisions of the House if they were clear. On three previous occasions we had not decision but indecision. I shall be delighted if my hon. Friend can put me right on this if I have it wrong.

Mr. English: I can put my right hon. Friend right on the last point. The amendment was carried and Ministers and others then voted against the motion out of this stubborn attitude which arose because they did not like the fact that it was amended. They are entitled to do that, but they are not then entitled to say that the House was in a state of indecision because it did not do what they wanted it to do.
The stubborn attitude was apparent then, and it is even more apparent now. In the first place the House referred the matter back to the Select Committee. That, I should have thought, was a fair illustration of view and a normal and courteous way of doing these things. We expected the Select Committee to listen to the will of the House and to come back with a report that conformed to it. That did not happen, so on the next occasion an amendment was moved. As an illustration of this stubborn attitude, the motion is back again today.
The majority of us are willing to accept the will of the House, but this stubborn minority is not. The stubborn minority will not accept it because the Stationery Office does not like it. We own the Stationery Office and we employ it. We pay the wages of everyone in it, and they are considerable. It behoves the Stationery Office to do what the House wishes, not to keep coming back and saying "We do not like what you are asking us to do. Will you please change your mind?" That is what seems to have been happening. That is what we all believe.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I apologise for intervening twice in my hon. Friend's speech. However, I want to make this matter absolutely clear. It is not a question of Her Majesty's Stationery Office refusing to accept the decision of the House. Frankly, I think that the House ought occasionally to recognise the splendid job that the Stationery Office does in printing Hansard. My hon. Friend said that the Stationery Office ought to accept that the House of Commons is a customer. The Stationery Office recognises that fact, but points out that, as we are providing a new building for St. Stephen's Press, if we want to continue with Hansard in its present size, there is an additional price to be paid—£200,000 in capital and £40,000 in annual running costs. It is also a question of jobs and of where we purchase the new machinery—whether in Britain or abroad. These are the facts.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a long intervention.

Mr. English: No one suggests that the Stationery Office is not doing its job. We want it to go on doing its job. It is

a lovely little job. We like our Hansard and appreciate the Stationery Office's work in producing it. We want it to go on doing just that. If it is technically difficult or impossible to produce Hansard in its present size, let us have it a little smaller—A5 or something like that. We are not fuddy-duddies or reactionaries. We do not want a large telephone directory European Community Journal type book. The Stationery Office could conform to our perfectly reasonable request to keep Hansard as it is, or to make it a little smaller if it wants to use a metric size machine. However, Members do not want this great gawky object which will be a nuisance to carry into the Chamber if they wish to quote from it.
On that basis, it is fair to say to the Stationery Office "We are your owners, your employers. The taxpayer pays most of your wages. Without the taxpayer, you would not have a job at all."

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I think that it might be helpful if I intervene, I hope briefly, at this time to express the view of the Select Committee, which was unanimous.
I should make it clear that, although I speak from this useful position at the Dispatch Box, on which I can spread out papers and have bound volumes before me, the Opposition are free on this occasion, as on so many others, to vote as they please. This is not a party matter.
It has been said that the Services Committee should serve the House. Certainly that is what it is there to do. The Committee is most reluctant to make changes in services to which the House has long been accustomed in a particular form.
At the same time, the Committee is careful with public money. Every item of domestic expenditure is considered in detail every year. Indeed, the whole of yesterday morning was devoted to the closest scrutiny of a modest list of improvements to the domestic comfort of Members and, predominantly, of the staff who serve us.
When the Stationery Office approached us with a proposal to consider A4—and I give it to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) that it was the Stationery Office which came to us with the proposal, and I shall explain


why in a moment—on grounds of increased efficiency and reduced cost, we subjected its representatives to a most stringent cross-examination on two occasions. On the first occasion, the House said that we had not published enough information. On the second occasion, we did our best to provide further information, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead has attacked us because we have not produced yet another report. However, we have had the benefit of a speech from the Lord President, and the Minister responsible for the Stationery Office has intervened a number of times in the debate.
I must make it quite clear that the Stationery Office came to us following continuous anxiety—I use that as a diplomatic word—on the part of the Select Committee lest this vital service to the House should break down. I digress for a moment to say that it was not just anxiety on our part. We are perhaps at the centre and understand some of these matters. Many hon. Members had made violent attacks, some of them on the Stationery Office and others on the holders of the office of Lord President in a number of different Governments, because the Stationery Office had failed in its duty to provide the parliamentary papers that we required at the proper times.
I have no wish to join in those attacks. I say simply that we realise that much of the difficulty is caused by out-of-date machinery and the strains imposed on the printers working for the Stationery Office. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) was passionate in what he said on that subject, and rightly so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead has served with distinction on the Services Committee. I wish only that he had been with us when we considered this matter, because it is possible, that he might have been a unanimous signatory of this report. My hon. Friend made the very best of a case, as he always does in the House, by bringing in every argument which could be made against the proposal. But I must hand it to him, because he has one personal grouse, and it may apply elsewhere. I happen to know that he has fitted out a beautiful room in his home, at great personal expense which is not allowable for income tax, with shelves to accommodate volumes of

Hansard of the present size, and that he is desolated at the prospect of not having enough House of Commons Hansards to fill those shelves.
However, there are at least 20 more volumes coming along, even if we agree to change the size today, and there may be more if the Stationery Office has a bigger backlog than usual. There will also be an index volume. My hon. Friend must also not forget that, if he wants to fill his shelves, he is entitled to free copies of the bound volumes of the House of Lords Hansard and of the statutes.

Mr. Spearing: This has not been mentioned until now, but I understand that the House of Lords Hansard is not printed by HMSO. It is produced by private contract. Is there any liaison with the other place? Will it change its size, or can it maintain the same size with fewer volumes?

Mr. Cooke: I never expected to stand at this Dispatch Box and answer for their Lordships on any matter. However, I can tell the House that, should the Commons go to A4, their Lordships would assent to changing to that form.
As for the bound volumes which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) got from the Library, he obtained the thickest of the bound specimen volumes available. The Stationery Office produced six copies of this very thick volume. They were made to represent the thickest volume which had ever been produced. The average size would be much the same as the book on field sports which I showed the House on the last occasion on which we debated this matter.
It is perfectly true that the present pale powder blue shiny cover could be changed to matt dark green and, if I may give a personal undertaking, if we have to go on with the present slippery size—the difficult bulky volumes—we could at least change the colour in due course without any increase in the cost.
However, I return to the serious matter in the debate. If we print all our papers at the same size as the present Hansard, the machine saves £360,000 and there is a saving of £87,000 on manpower. If we standardise on the A4 size—this is a figure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead did not quote—we save £805,000 on machines and more than


£250,000 a year, year by year, on manpower. That figure has not been mentioned even by the Minister.

Mr. Alan Clark: Do I understand that we would be saving on manpower if we used the larger size? Surely the argument of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) and others is that it is in the interest of maintaining a full work force that we should proceed to this large European Community-size metric document. Is my hon. Friend saying that if we have the small or current standard size HMSO will be employing more people in producing this document?

Mr. Cooke: The exact numbers employed are a matter for the Stationery Office and the Minister directly responsible. All I can say is that, if my hon. Friend carried on with his argument, the logical conclusion would be to have Hansard in A5—something even smaller—employing enormous numbers of people stapling it all together. The great thing about going to A4, as the only hon. Member in the printing industry who has spoken, the hon. Member for Basildon, said, is that we would save 17,000 pages a year, or 27 per cent. of total production. That significantly fewer number of sheets to handle must produce a quicker service.
We must give our printers the proper tools of the trade if they are to survive. I say to those hon. Members who did not like what the hon. Member for Basildon said that he brought them up sharp and faced them with the facts of life, and of course it is not nice to face the facts of life if they are inconvenient or perhaps difficult to absorb.
It is traditional that we spend quite a long time chewing over at great length our domestic affairs on the rare occasions when the Government can find time for such debates.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, sharp though the point of view of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Monoman) was in his evidence, the only correct body to give evidence to the House is the Select Committee, and that it has singularly failed to do?

Mr. Cooke: In a way, my hon. Friend gives me my point. If we did not do our

job well enough, he has had opportunity to drag the Minister to his feet on several occasions. If my hon. Friend did not like the report, he could have argued against it on a number of occasions. He is not now a member of the Select Committee, so perhaps we are not as efficient as we were. The fact is that my hon. Friend had a long go tonight, but made no new points.
The most significant and serious point to come out of the debate was made by the hon. Member for Basildon, who, I imagine, speaks for the unions that he has been consulting. He said that there were agreed manning scales by the unions for the A4 size, so that if we decide here and now we can reap quite enormous benefits. I do not want to keep the House from those for a moment longer.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) has corrected the statement of the Leader of the House that to replace the present size of the press would mean purchasing the machinery outside Britain. My hon. Friend said that such a machine could be purchased in Britain as one off the ordinary line. In view of that, will the hon. Gentleman now correct my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, because this issue is what the vote hangs on tonight?

Mr. Cooke: That is not quite correct, but I do not think that the hon. Member had the benefit of hearing the whole of the earlier debate. Even if we could find a machine in this country to produce the present size of Hansard, it would have been put together with hits and pieces from all over the place. That would result in enormous trouble in the years to come. The easiest way to get a machine to print the present size of Hansard would be to go abroad for a purpose-built model, and I am sure that the House would wish to avoid that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has returned time and again to the business of reading Hansard in bed. Now we know that he does it morning and evening. It would be indelicate perhaps to ask what he does at weekends. Perhaps he reads the Hansard of the other House. I think he is determined—he is a very determined man in many ways—to get himself into the newspapers tomorrow. [Interruption.] I am saying


this in the most friendly way to him, as I am sure he knows. We serve together on the Works of Art Committee. I feel that he would like to see himself in a cartoon in the newspapers as the hon. Member who reads Hansard in bed. The Committee would no doubt hang it on the wall in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) would, of course, no longer be able to use copies of Hansard as shinguards. On the football field he would have to use a Select Committee report and on the cricket field he could use Dod's Parliamentary Companion for some other protective purpose.
Let us get to the end of this matter. Let us come to a decision. The House has failed to do so on previous occasions. Members can interpret previous decisions one way or another. Time is not on our side. We lost a year last time. Let us not lose another year. Let us decide the matter here and now and leave it in no doubt, and then the Government must accept the decision of the House.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am somewhat bewildered by the debate, because all this hangs on a simple point of order of 18th January. I feel somewhat let down, for this reason: when we passed the motion on 15th March asking for more information, that meant that the Services Committee simply produced its evidence which had not originally been published. That motion was passed by a fairly big majority—175 to 83.
Then on 5th May we had the curious debate when the House decided that it wanted the amendment which was in my name, although some hon. Members voted the other way for reasons that we can understand. Now we have the debate again. But from that day, 5th May, when my amendment was successful, until today no further information has been sent to me. I have had no indication other than the Order Paper telling me that the debate was to take place—apart from some information from an informal source a week ago that the Government were putting it down again because the machinery could not be obtained in Britain. There has been no further information.
The information that we have had tonight from the speech of the Lord Presi-

dent, at the opening of the debate, has provided us with a great deal of new material. We have also had a very important speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman). But it is in a sense hearsay. I do not doubt the good will and, indeed, the veracity of those hon. Members who have spoken, but it was new to the debate.

Mr. Philip Holland: Does the hon. Gentleman in his own mind feel clear that the new machinery can be purchased in this country or that it has to be purchased in Germany?

Mr. Spearing: I understand that it could be purchased in this country but that it would be a hybrid machine of doubtful quality and difficult to maintain, otherwise it would have to be purchased abroad. But the point I am making is that we have got ourselves into a terrible procedural and technical mess. I am not sure whether the House ought to decide this matter now in the absence of information that has not been made available. That is the root of this matter. If the Services Committee found that indeed there was a change from the situation on 5th May—that is what it is saying—surely it ought to present another report to the House telling us in detail what that change is. The reference to the purchase of china is irrelevant. The point was that the china cups could have been made in this country. Therefore, that analogy is not correct.
Let us suppose that we pass this motion tonight and purchase material from abroad. How are we to know that a printer will not come along and say, "I could have done it."? There has been no evidence about what inquiries the Services Committee has made. This has been going on for six months, yet we have heard only tonight that there is a complete change in the factors in the decision. Is that good enough for the House of Commons?
This series of debates has shown the House up not very well. The basis of the problem has been lack of information. I raised the point of order at the start of it all only because someone was trying to get the motion through on the nod [HON. MEMBERS:"NO."] Oh, yes. It is clear from Hansard of 18th January that there was an attempt to get the matter through on the nod.
The unsatisfactory thing is that we are having this latest debate—seven months after the previous one—and the Services Committee has not provided one single piece of further evidence. That puts me in a very difficult position. When I saw on the Order Paper that this matter was being raised again, I not unreasonably put down the amendment which had been successful on the previous occasion. But I was never informed either by the Services Committee or by the Leader of the House that new factors had arisen, in which case I might have thought twice about putting down the amendment.
The House is being rushed into taking another decision without being supplied with that information. I do not think that the House should take this sort of decision without having another report from the Services Committee. It might even be a brief report. Incidentally, if it has taken the Services Committee seven months to come up with this information, why did it not get to work sooner?
This may not be an important issue in comparison with the big issues that we have discussed today. There are many major issues which ought to be decided, and I am not claiming that the time of the House is well spent on this matter. But I would claim that if the House of Commons is to decide on great matters of State, matters of economic policy, taxation and so on, the information available to Members for those debates should be present.

If we are bounced into a decision in the first instance and bounced into another decision tonight—and if the way in which the authorities conduct our debates is by not providing the information—how can we be sure that we shall get the right sort of information on other matters? Before we take a decision, I hope that the Chairman of the Services Committee will suggest that we should be given the facts rather than the conflicting evidence that we have been given tonight.

The question of Hansard and its size may well be a moral tale about the way in which the House conducts its pocedures and the way in which we are able, or not able, to come to decisions. Because of the lack of information, I do not think that we should come to a decision tonight. I hope that the Chairman of the Services Committee will apologise to the House for not having given the information that it ought to have had before being asked to deal with this matter. I hope that that is what the hon. Gentleman will do. However, it does not look as though he intends to do so—

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 58.

Division No. 83]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McElhone, Frank


Atkinson, Norman
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Madden, Max


Bales, Alf
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mahon, Simon


Beith, A. J.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marks, Kenneth


Benyon, W.
Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Freud, Clement
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
George, Bruce
Neubert, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Golding, John
Noble, Mike


Buchanan, Richard
Gourlay, Harry
Ogden, Eric


Buchan-Smith, Alick
Graham, Ted
Pardoe, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Penhaligon, David


Carmichael, Neil
Grant, John (Islington C)
Price, William (Rugby)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Clemitson, Ivor
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Radice, Giles


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cohen, Stanley
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Richardson, Miss Jo


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, Rt Ton William (Stockton)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roper, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sandelson, Neville


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sever, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dunnett, Jack
Loyden, Eddie
Sims, Roger


Eadle, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)




Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Woof, Robert


Stallard, A. W.
Ward, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Steel, Rt Hon David
Watkins, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Strang, Gavin
Whitehead, Phillip



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Tierney, Sydney
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Tinn, James






NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Langford Holt, Sir John
St John-Stevas, Norman


Body, Richard
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin


Brotherton, Michael
McCusker, H.
Shersby, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
MacGregor, John
Skinner, Dennis


Carson, John
Mather, Carol
Spearing, Nigel


Cockroft, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spriggs, Leslie


Crouch, David
Maynard, Miss Joan
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Dunlop, John
Mendelson, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Durant, Tony
Mills, Peter
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Emery, Peter
Moate, Roger
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Molyneaux, James
Wakeham, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Monro, Hector
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Whitlock, William


Grist, Ian
Paisley, Rev Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Rhodes, James R.



Holland, Philip
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Alan Clark and


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Michael English.


Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

Division No. 84]
AYES
[10.10 p.m.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Kinnock, Neil
St John-Stevas, Norman


Beith, A. J.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shelton, William(Streatham)


Body, Richard
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Shepherd, Colin


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis
McCusker, H.
Spearing, Nigel


Carlisle, Mark
MacGregor, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Carson, Jack
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Cormack, Patrick
Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Crouch, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mendelson, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dunlop, John
Moate, Roger
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Durant, Tony
Molloy, William
Wakeham, John


Emery, Peter
Molyneaux, James
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Monro, Hector
Ward, Michael


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Whitlock, William


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Winterton, Nicholas


Glyn, Dr Alan
Paisley, Rev Ian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Grist, Ian
Penhaligon, David



Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Michael English and


Holland, Philip
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Alan Clark.


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rose, Paul B.





NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Atkinson, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Henderson, Douglas


Bates, Alf
Dunnett, Jack
Hunter, Adam


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Eadie, Alex
John, Brynmor


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kerr, Russell


Brown, Hugh D (Provan)
Fetcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Le Merchant, Spencer


Buchan, Norman
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Buchanan, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Carmichael, Neil
Freud, Clement
Madden, Max


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
George, Bruce
Mahon, Simon


Clemitson, Ivor
Golding, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Graham, Ted
Marks, Kenneth


Cohen, Stanley
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Conlan, Bernard
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Grist, Ian
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moonman, Eric


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)

The House divided: Ayes 67, Noes96.

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Roper, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Sandelson Neville
Watkins, David


Neubert, Michael
Sever, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Noble, Mike
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ogden, Eric
Sims, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Price, William (Rugby)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Woof, Robert


Radice, Giles
Stallard, A. W.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rhodes, James R
Steel, Rt Hon David



Richardson, Miss Jo
Strang, Gavin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tinn, James
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

Question accordingly agreed to.

The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 63.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their Fourth Report in the last Session of Parliament relating to the size of Hansard.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting and the second Motion relating to House of Commons (Services) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after each has been entered upon. whichever is the later.—[Mr. Tinn.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SOUND BROADCASTING)

10.30 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That there shall be a Select Committee to give directions and perform other duties in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution of the House of 26th July 1977 in relation to Sound Broadcasting:

That the Committee do consist of Six Members:

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time:

That Two be the Quorum of the Committee:

That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before them and any Memoranda submitted to them:

That the Committee have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the matters referred to them:

That the Committee have power to join with any Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting that may be appointed by the Lords:

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. William Price.]

Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct that you have not selected my amendment?

Mr. Speaker: I should have informed the House that I have not selected the amendments.

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your non-selection creates a peculiar situation. I direct your attention to what the Lord President of the Council said last week. I asked him:
After the guillotine motion on Thursday there is the question of broadcasting the proceedings of this House. When will the Government's motion on that subject be laid, so that we may all consider it, and will it include what every Committee of this House, bar one, has recommended, and what at least one broadcasting authority recommends—namely, a House of Commons controlled broadcasting unit?
The Leader of the House fairly replied:
My hon. Friend has his own views on that matter. Some of my hon. Friends and others agree with him, and there are some hon. Members who take a different view. The matter, however, is one for the House to decide, as it will do next week."—[Official Report, 19th January 1978; Vol. 942, c, 665.]


My right hon. Friend gave me an assurance that the House would have the opportunity to consider the serious question of how broadcasting is to be controlled.
It is simple or those who oppose broadcasting altogether to vote against this motion. But one Select Committee has recommended that there should be broadcasting with a House of Commons unit, and the most recent Select Committee recommended that there should be broadcasting without a House of Commons unit. I have always wanted to see a House of Commons unit, but there is no opportunity for me to discuss it. I am in a quandary.

Mr. Speaker: I heard what the Lord President said. He has a lot of authority, but he does not select amendments: That is my responsibility. I made my selection after careful thought. Indeed, at the request of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) earlier today, I went back to consider the matter further. But my decision must stand and I have not selected the amendment.

Mr. English: Further to the point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the representative of the Lord President whether he will withdraw the motion and table it in a new form so that the assurances made by his superior can be implemented? Not having the opportunity to decide the question of a House of Commons broadcasting unit, even if we sit until after midnight, is not carrying out the assurances of the Lord President.

Mr. Speaker: We shall not sit until after midnight on this matter but until 11.30 or one and a half hours after the debates started—that will be midnight.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Further to the point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As one who is concerned not about the establishment of a broadcasting unit in the House but about establishing broadcasting proceedings in the way in which the House wishes it, I endorse the sentiments and desire expressed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). We should postpone consideration of the broadcasting of the House until it is possible to consider whether there should be a broadcasting unit.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) must try to make

his point in the debate. The debate has begun and time is limited. I suggest that we proceed.

Mr. Clement Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No one may challenge my selection of amendments.

Mr. Freud: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you advise hon. Members how they should vote, if they are able to vote, if they believe that broadcasting should take place but that a unit of the House should be established? It seems that there is no alternative but to record a negative vote for a positive motion, and that is surely not in the best interests of the House.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is getting very near to challenging my selection. I have not selected the amendment.

Mr. English: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking further points of order on my selection of amendments.

Mr. English: I am in no way challenging your ruling Mr. Speaker. I am asking, through you, whether, in order to carry out the Lord President's assurance, my hon. Friend the Minister will take away this motion tonight and retable it in a form which carries out that assurance.

Mr. Speaker: We shall find that out only when the Minister speaks.

10.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): We are not this evening discussing the principle of broadcasting of our proceedings—we have been over that course many times and the House has taken its decision. But I think that it is right to explain the present position. Work on the temporary accommodation in Bridge Street is nearing completion, the premises will be available to the broadcasters on 24th February and regular transmission will begin immediately after Easter. This has been a long drawn-out matter. The experiment took place in distant days and I think that most Members will welcome the fact that a decision of the House is finally being implemented.
It could be argued, strictly speaking, that it was not necessary for the Lord President to table this motion. Broadcasting could have started without it and could presumably still go ahead if it is defeated tonight. I recognise that there is a problem here for my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), and I accept what the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said—that the only alternative is to vote against what we are suggesting, if that is the view that is held.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend said that the Leader of the House did not need to bring this motion here tonight. But he might recall that we were in the same boat last time. We had a broadcasting motion to which I tabled an amendment about the broadcasting unit, but it was not selected. The Leader of the House, I accept, had nothing to do with that. However, on the previous occasion, because the amendment was not selected, those of us in favour of broadcasting voted for the motion, but then voted against the Select Committee motion to illustrate that we were not happy with the arrangements.
The view of the House was put over as far as it could be within the straitjacket of procedure. The same thing is likely to happen again tonight. I asked my hon. Friend the Minister—I know that he is in a difficulty since the Lord President is not here—to enable the assurance of the Lord President to be implemented. Because of your selection of amendments, Mr. Speaker, that opportunity is being denied us for a second time. May we have an assurance that, if we vote for the motion tonight, there will be an opportunity to consider that matter? If not, will my hon. Friend withdraw the motion and represent it in a form that will enable that assurance to be fulfilled?

Mr. Price: I do not intend to withdraw the motion. I understand that some hon. Members will vote against the motion when they may wish broadcasting to begin as soon as possible. I am no more responsible for the selection of amendments or the feelings of the Select Committee than is my right hon. Friend the Lord President.

Mr. Freud: The Parliamentary Secretary said that there was no compulsion

to bring this motion before the House. If the motion is defeated, will he feel that he still has a right to start broadcasting the proceedings of the House after Easter?

Mr. Price: Yes. Looking at the resolutions that have been passed by the House in the past, there could be no other conclusion. Whether we begin broadcasting is another matter. I should need to discuss that matter with the Lord President, and clearly we should take account of the view of the House. Strictly speaking, in accordance with resolutions already passed by the House, it was not essential that we table this motion. I think that my hon. Friend agrees with me.

Mr. English: I do. But there is a difference between technicalities and the gentlemanly courtesies of the House which dictate that, although we cannot force him to do so, the Lord President having given an assurance during business questions, my hon. Friend, as his junior Minister, should endeavour to see that that assurance is carried out. I do not think that any hon. Member would dispute that.
I am not blaming the Lord President for the way in which this matter has come unstuck, because I recognise how it has come unstuck. Nevertheless, the Lord President gave the House an assurance that we should have a separate vote on the question of the broadcasting unit.
I should like, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask whether there is any way of deferring these proceedings in order to get the Lord President back to deal with this matter. Obviously, my hon. Friend is in a difficult situation, because he cannot say that he will withdraw the motion or that he will arrange for a debate to take place next week on the broadcasting unit. We all understand that. However, we shall be placed in an awkward situation unless the Lord President is brought here to explain his assurance.

Mr. Price: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to vote, and I have no doubt that he will take that opportunity. If he does not like what we are proposing, he will vote against it. I fully understand and recognise that.

Mr. Rathbone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are the person who is charged with defending the rights of Back Benchers. The Minister has explicitly stated that, if we want to vote in favour of broadcasting, it is impossible for us to do so on the motion before the House. That is because the motion takes no cognisance of the assurance that the Leader of the House gave to hon. Members. Furthermore, it does not take account of the lack of a vote on a substantive motion in July last year. Is it not a complete dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to consult hon. Members on how they want to handle a matter that is both private and special to the House—namely, the broadcasting of its proceedings?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The House is well aware that the actions of Ministers are not the responsibility of the Chair. I must ask the Minister to continue with his speech.

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was not a point of order. If the Minister is allowed to continue with his speech, it may be that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) will catch my eye in due course.

Mr. English: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. However, I think that it is relevant to point out that the Lord President was warned by me that this matter would be raised.

Mr. Price: The effect simply would be that the unanimously agreed recommendation of the Joint Select Committee—that there should be parliamentary oversight—would not be put into effect. That may not be absolutely crucial, but I believe it to be desirable.
The discussion is about what form of oversight there should be. The Joint Select Committee believes that it can be done by a small group of Members from both Houses acting as a link with the broadcasters as well as considering complaints and any technical problems that might arise.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Price: It would appear that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, and we have only an hour and a half.

Mr. Skinner: I, too, am worried about the appointment of a Select Committee. Some of us are in favour of broadcasting. We were faced with having to take a decision on the last occasion, which we did not want to do. But the most perplexing question is why it is necessary for a Select Committee to be set up—and on the recommendation of a Lord President who does not like them. I am told that he is not in favour of Select Committees. I am not very happy about the way that they are constructed at present, either, but that is not to say that I am against them per se. The way in which they establish a cosy relationship is such that I can just imagine the sort of people who will be on the Select Committee. Some old-established Back Benchers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) desires to make a speech, he can endeavour to catch my eye later.

Mr. Price: Ideally, some of us would have liked to see the former Joint Select Committee perform this task. It operated quite effectively and without criticism from either House. But I am sure that it will be possible to find hon. Members from both Houses who will fulfil the role which they are given by this House and the other place.

Mr. John Roper: Would such a Select Committee be able to employ its own staff?

Mr. Price: I shall be coming to that, and it is one of the main objections to a parliamentary unit. Before that, however, let me deploy the arguments which the Select Committee and I believe to be relevant.
The Committee considered at length the possibility of a broadcasting unit, but it came down against it. The main reason for that, though not the only one, was that we did not want to appear to be involved in any form of editorial control. That, too, is the view of the broadcasting authorities, perhaps not surprisingly, and I suspect that it would be shared by the majority of right hon. and hon. Members. But that does not mean that the broadcasting authorities are unaccountable. The


very opposite is the case. The Committee will be in existence, although I hope that it will not meet that often—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It will meet as the need arises and, if there are a multitude of complaints, it will meet at regular intervals. But I hope that that will not happen.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: Is it not abundantly clear that such a Select Committee would be more likely to meddle in matters of content and would be ignorant of matters of form, which has always been the classic argument for a broadcasting unit?

Mr. Price: That is a good reason for not setting it up, I accept. But I do not see that as a serious possibility. I shall deal with that at the end of my remarks, and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy my hon. Friend.
We talk about permanent broadcasting, but nothing is that permanent. The House is its own master in this matter as in others, and it could stop broadcasting as easily as it approves it. That seems to be a matter of some importance in this discussion.

Mr. Francis Pym: I want to put two matters to the hon. Gentleman. He said that in his opinion the House would be quite entitled to institute broadcasting and go ahead with the process without necessarily passing this motion at all. How does he sustain that argument? The motion which the House passed on 26th July authorised the BBC and the IBA to provide and operate singly or jointly sound signal origination equipment and so forth
subject to the directions of the House or a committee empowered to give such directions".
Does that not mean that this House—and it is a House of Commons matter—cannot proceed unless and until a Select Committee or some form of Committee is set up? It does not say that it must be a Select Committee. I should like to know how the hon. Gentleman justifies what he said.
Secondly, it came out in the earlier debate that this is not a Government matter: it is a House of Commons matter. From what has been said already, I should have thought that there was enough anxiety evident in the Chamber for the Leader of the House to be here

to listen to the debate. If the House is unhappy about this pre-eminently House of Commons matter, surely, if there is any doubt about it, it is within the power of the Leader of the House that it should be considered in another way.
There are two important issues. The first is a particular matter of something said by the hon. Gentleman; the other is the general unease expressed in the House, which seems to require the presence of the Leader of the House, or, if that is not possible, consideration by the Government of the situation that has been reached. If the House as such is not happy about the basis upon which this motion is being moved, as it is a pre-eminently House of Commons matter, hon. Members are entitled to require the Government to pause for further consideration.

Mr. Price: The right hon. Gentleman has interpreted it in one way and I in another. But I think that it is right that I should give the assurance that if we lose tonight, I think that it would be wrong to go ahead with broadcasting anyway. Let us be clear: at no stage did I say to the House that, whatever the result tonight, we were going ahead. The House would surely be surprised if I were to say that, regardless of the decision it takes tonight, we are going ahead. I should be asking for a rough road if I took that line.

Mr. Pym: What the hon. Gentleman has done by that interjection is to escalate this motion, which is about setting up a Select Committee, as it were to look after the House of Commons interest in broadcasting, into a vote on principle. What he is saying is that if he wins the vote tonight, he will go ahead whatever happens, while, if he loses, we shall not have broadcasting at all. That surely cannot be right. No one looking at the Order Paper this morning thought that tonight we should be asked to decide in principle whether we were to broadcast, yet that is the effect of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Price: I thought that I began by arguing that we were not on the issue of principle tonight. What I am saying is that if the motion is passed, the House has given us authority to go ahead with broadcasting. What I am also saying


is that, in view of what has been said—and feelings are running high—if we lose the motion, clearly there will have to be further discussions before we decide on what line we would go ahead. But that does not alter the principle, which is that the House has decided on broadcasting.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend has just given an assurance. Why should we necessarily believe assurances give from the Lord President's office when the last assurance was that we should have the opportunity to decide whether we wanted a parliamentary broadcasting unit? Is my hon. Friend now saying that anyone who does not want broadcasting should vote against the setting up of the Select Committee, and that anyone who wants broadcasting but with a parliamentary broadcasting unit should vote against the Select Committee because that is the only way we shall have the opportunity to consider the desire to have broadcasting with a parliamentary unit?

Mr. Price: I have conceded that there is the greatest difficulty. I understand that there will be hon. Members voting tonight, as they did on a previous occasion, for something that they do not necessarily wholly want. I accept that, and I have to put it to them—

Mr. Pym: rose—

Mr. Price: No. We have been going now for 25 minutes and a number of hon. Members want to speak. I am entitled to continue with what I have to say in justification—

Mr. Pym: rose—

Mr. Price: Very well.

Mr. Pym: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I think that he must be aware that the House is totally unhappy about the position which has arisen. I am bound to say that the Leader of the House should be here—I see that the right hon. Gentleman has just come in and I am glad that he is now present. I am sorry that he has not been here for the previous 25 minutes. He would have learned that, regardless of whether the individual is in favour of broadcasting in principle, the House is extremely unhappy with what has happened so far.
It appears to me from what has been said so far—and the hon. Gentleman has been doing his best—that it would be wise in the circumstances not to proceed with the motion and to take another opportunity. I say that without regard to the pros and cons of whether broadcasting is or is not a good thing. I think that the House of Commons—and it is pre-eminently a House of Commons matter—ought on that basis to take another opportunity of returning to the subject.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I, in the presense of the Lord President, briefly repeat what I said earlier? I drew the attention of the House to the assurance given by the Lord President that we should have an opportunity tonight to discuss the question of a parliamentary unit. The amendment that would have allowed it was not selected, and I do not blame the Lord President for that, but as a result we are in exactly the same difficulty that we were in on the previous occasion. Many of us are in favour of broadcasting and desire to see a parliamentary unit. The only way in which we can express that view is to vote against the motion tonight, joining forces, as it were, with those who are against broadcasting, but we do not wish to do that.
Since the Lord President has given an assurance that there will be an opportunity to consider the parliamentary unit, will he express to the House how he proposes to implement that assurance, since, partly through no fault of his own, it has not turned out to be the case that the assurance he gave is being carried out tonight as he promised?

Mr. Price: I feel that the House might be better able to judge the matter if I were allowed to deploy my arguments, and that is what I should like to do. As I understand the position, my hon. Friends want greater guarantees about the rights of this House than a Joint Select Committee would be able to provide. They would expect to do it through a broadcasting unit. I have never been able to understand just what that would achieve. What would it do, apart from originating the sound signal? The sound signal is something that the BBC regards as a natural function of its independence. The BBC has made it clear right from the beginning


that it considers broadcasters are technically best qualified for that particular job. It is true that in evidence the BBC has said that if Parliament decided that it should originate the signal, it would accept that. It would not have any choice, other than to refuse to broadcast at all, and that obviously is not a serious possibility.
It could be argued that the BBC was responsible during the experimental period and that it worked well and without complaint, so why, therefore, the need for change at this stage? I share the view of the BBC that a useful relationship could be established with the Joint Select Committee which would not impinge on the broadcaster's independence but which would protect the interests of Parliament, and that is what we are aiming to achieve.

Mr. Whitehead: rose—

Mr. Price: I will not give way to my hon. Friend. I have given way enough already.
There are technical problems associated with the parliamentary broadcasting unit. It would lead to duplication of staff and substantial additional costs would fall upon us. As I understand it, Parliament would have to purchase and instal the electronic equipment that would be necessary to originate a clean feed signal from the Tannoy signal.

Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Chair has ruled that the amendment may not be moved, is it in order for the Minister now to speak to the amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Such arguments as the Minister puts in moving his motion are his alone.

Mr. Freud: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is attacking an amendment which the proposer has not been allowed to move.

Mr. English: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I notice that there is a conspicuous silence on the part of the Lord President, who could shorten the debate immensely by simply saying that in some way he will find a short period of time in which we can discuss the parliamentary unit. He has already promised the House last Thursday that he would do this.

Mr. Price: I was endeavouring to explain the situation and to draw attention to the reasons why the Joint Select Committee took a decision in favour of its own ideas rather than the alternatives. That is all I wish to do.
As I was attempting to explain, Parliament would have to purchase and instal the necessary electronic equipment to originate a clean feed signal from the Tannoy sound re-inforcement system and then distribute it to the broadcasters. That would cost about £20,000. But if additional facilities are provided to include signals from the commentary boxes, the cost is more likely to be £80,000. Staff would be required to operate the equipment, and the operating costs would be at least £30,000 a year.
I have a detailed description from the broadcasting authorities of what all this would mean, but time is moving on. I assure the House that it would be a fairly complicated matter and in all probability it would further delay the broadcasting of proceedings of this House. That surely would be wrong, bearing in mind resolutions of this House, the amount of public money that we have spent on broadcasting facilities already, as well as that spent by the BBC and IBA.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is the Minister saying that the production of the signal from the House will be the exclusive preserve of the BBC and that the IBA will not have a look-in at all?

Mr. Price: That just is not true. The two organisations have worked closely with the Joint Committee and are in full agreement with all the tentative arrangements arrived at.
I ask the House to approve a Committee to
give directions and perform other duties.
I believe that it will have all the powers that it will need while ensuring that the public knows perfectly well that it is receiving independent broadcasting of our proceedings.
This is a matter of some importance. But I give my hon. Friends this assurance. If it is found that this system is not working—[An HON. MEMBER: "It will be too late."] It will not be too late to stop broadcasting proceedings. Nothing is too late. If it is found that this system is not working, we shall be prepared to discuss


the matter with those who object to it and, if necessary, consider the question again.
For the moment, at least, I recommend the proposal put by the Joint Select Committee and contained in this motion. It protects Parliament and it ensures the rights and the independence of the broadcasting authorities. I am certain that people are looking forward to broadcasting—indeed, they find it hard to believe that the matter has been so long delayed. I hope there will be no further delay.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened carefully to everything that the Minister has said. What he has done is address his argument almost entirely to rebutting the amendment, although there has been no selection of that amendment and, frankly, to narrow the debate so that it is now to be channelled almost entirely on an amendment that has not been selected.
Is it in order, therefore, in the speeches that will follow to turn the debate exclusively into a debate on that amendment? The fact is that we are not discussing the principle of this matter—we have accepted that there shall be broadcasting—but we are discussing instead the question of what type of parliamentary unit or Select Committee shall be the outcome of this debate.
I am 100 per cent. in favour of the broadcasting of our proceedings. In order to conclude this debate satisfactorily, all we want is some assurance from the Lord President that there will be an opportunity for this matter to be properly considered.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has asked that this motion be withdrawn. If it is not to be withdrawn, surely the Lord President is in a position to deal with it so that we do not engage in a debate which turns on an amendment which Mr. Speaker has not selected. This is a general debate on the subject.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The Minister's speech has left us with a deep sense of dissatisfaction. We are dissatisfied on three grounds. The first is that it is clear from the form and text of the motion

that it does not carry out the belief that was widely canvassed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), and recorded in the Official Report—that there would be discussion of a parliamentary unit prior to the final decision being made on the system of broadcasting.
The second cause for dissatisfaction is that there seems to be in the Minister's mind the idea that the principle of broad casting is still open for discussion.

Mr. William Price: No.

Mr. Shaw: Yes, with respect, the Minister made it clear that, if there is to be any disagreement with the system proposed, those who disagreed would have to vote against it. There was not up for discussion any alternative system. If that is the case, a negative vote expressed tonight must be interpreted as a vote by those who disagree with the sound broadcasting of our proceedings. The Minister laid great stress on the fact that he believed that the House would take a quick decision on the matter because the concept of broadcasting had been around for a considerable period. It is not right that he should suggest that we are not being offered an opportunity the negative of which is to delay further progress on broadcasting our proceedings.

Mr. Ioan Evans: We have a motion before us and there is an amendment to it which has not been selected. If the motion goes ahead and the Select Committee is appointed, can representations be made to that Committee to deal with the matter raised in the amendment? Could that Committee report to the House that it would be possible for the subject of a broadcasting unit to be raised at a later stage?

Mr. Shaw: Interpretation of the amendment is not a matter for me. It is a question of what is to be debated in this House. Since it is clear that the Chair has not accepted any amendment, we cannot assume that any discussions in a Select Committee will take place. We are guided solely by the Minister's motion.
The third reason why I express concern is that there has been discussion over a considerable time as to the style and type of broadcasting our proceedings. I recall many pleasant sittings of the Services


Committee when this matter was debated, but always running through those discussions was the deepest awareness that it might be possible for the House of Commons to be unable to influence not the editorial content of what was produced but the manner in which the broadcasting of proceedings was conducted.
If I may give an example, will the proceedings before Committees form part of the broadcasting output? That aspect was virtually removed in the initial stages because, for one reason or another, the broadcasting authorities felt that it was unwise to involve themselves in the capital equipment required to record those proceedings, and there were major difficulties in the number of rooms to be used in Committee proceedings. One recognises the difficulties, but the fact remains that the broadcasting output of this House was to omit the proceedings of some of the processes of the House that take place outside this Chamber. I believe that that would be a distortion of the proceedings of the House.
It is that kind of feature that suggests to me that if the House of Commons were to control its own unit, it would be responsible for the total image of the House presented through the broadcasting media. The image of this House is a unique property of this House. I do not believe that the House would willingly arrogate control of the public image of this place to a broadcasting authority or to several such authorities. Editorial content is important, as are programme mix and balance, but the image portrayed is far too precious to be arrogated to a broadcasting authority.
I do not consider that a Select Committee as proposed of both Houses can be in quite the same position as a professional unit responsible to the two Houses. Such a Committee may not intervene too frequently, but it could have an intervention and regulatory purpose.
That fact remains that the way in which the motion has been put suggests that the Government are seeking to take the quickest way out of the problem, with the minimum amount of discussion of alternative systems, and are suggesting to the House that we must take it or leave it. In those circumstances, the House would be unwise to accept the recommendation.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is it not a fact that what the Minister has told us suggests that the Government do not want the broadcasting of our proceedings and that they are encouraging hon. Members, whether for or against broadcasting, to go into the "No" Lobby, thereby giving the Government an excuse for not broadcasting our proceedings? Will my hon. Friend evaluate that proposition?

Mr. Shaw: With the evidence that we have had in the past 24 hours of the Government's capacity to handle or mishandle its business, even my hon. Friend's interpretation is a possibility, but I do not really believe that it is in the Minister's mind.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. John Roper: A number of hon. Members are placed in difficult circumstances. We have long been in favour of the sound broadcasting of our proceedings starting as soon as possible and we do not wish to gain a reputation for being opposed to that, but we are anxious that the broadcasting should be done properly.
I wish to concentrate particularly on investigating what is and is not within the power of the Committee. We might thus be able to find some way of sorting out the dilemma that seems to have been facing us for the past 42 minutes.
The Committee is to have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge. Many of us have wanted to see the Committee given the power to appoint persons with expert knowledge to perform certain of the functions of an independent broadcasting unit. Unfortunately, it appears from the wording of the motion that there is to be a restriction imposed upon such persons and that they may supply only information which is not readily available—perhaps the Minister can tell us what sort of information that may be—or elucidate matters of complexity relating to the matters referred to them. I suspect that this is a formula which is general to the specialist advisers appointed to our Committees, but it seems totally inappropriate in this case.
As we have seen in previous debates, it would be useful if the powers given in relation to the Open University and, perhaps, some other areas were extended to the Committee so that it could appoint


people with expertise in these subjects who would be able to perform one of the functions in administering the output. I do not know whether that would require the expensive capital equipment to which the Minister referred, but I suspect that we should be able to charge the broadcasting services for that output and recoup the cost of any such equipment.
In drafting the motion did the Government just take the formula that normally applies when specialist advisers are appointed, or have they deliberately worded it in this way so that it will be impossible for the Committee to appoint people to perform functions as distinct from giving advice? I fear that the Government's view is that these persons should be restricted to the traditional role of specialist advisers. If that is so and if it is not possible for the Minister to assure us that we could consider a subsequent motion to modify that order so that the Committee would be able to appoint persons to carry out such functions, many of us who support the sound broadcasting of our proceedings will be obliged to vote against the motion.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: As the Minister has said that a vote against the motion will be a vote against broadcasting, and as a vote for the motion will be a vote against the interests of the House, it is a dilemma for every hon. Member as to how to vote, whether he or she is in favour of broadcasting or against it.
The sad fact is that this discussion could have occurred months ago. We had a vote on this point on 26th July last year, because those against broadcasting did not enter the Lobbies, the vote was not declared. It is exactly for that reason that we are discussing the question now, with no additional intellectual in-put or thought by the Government for the wishes of the House.
Whichever way the vote goes tonight, it will be no expression of what the body of the House really wants with regard to broadcasting. Whichever way we vote will go against one or other desire of those who go into the "Aye" or the "No" Lobby.
For this reason I should like to move the adjournment of the debate until the

Government can put down a motion so that we may discuss this question in the way the House wishes to discuss it. I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am unable to accept the motion.

Mr. Michael English: Some 12 years ago I sat on a Committee then called the Publications and Report of Debates Committee, which discovered that its terms of reference enabled it to consider the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House. Its terms of reference allowed it to do so because the late Stephen King Hall, later Lord King-Hall, had so constructed them. I want to pay tribute to his memory in that respect.
We subsequently examined the question of broadcasting in immense detail and came up with the proposal that the House should go into broadcasting, but with a parliamentary unit providing the "feed". The analogy we used was that of Hansard. Nobody says that a newspaper editor is precluded from summarising or omitting our remarks because there exists a verbatim text. The analogy is not exact, because broadcasting is not the same as printing, but let us not say that the broadcasting authorities are totally in favour of the BBC producing the "feed". In an issue of Independent Broadcasting before Christmas—I think the November issue—it was specifically stated that the IBA was in favour of the parliamentary unit.
I believe that that is understandable. In the end, the IBA accepted its being done by the BBC, because the Committee was pressing this at the bequest of my hon. Friend the Minister, but originally the IBA had proposed, just as the first Select Committee had proposed, that there should be a parliamentary unit.

Mr. William Price: My hon. Friend is putting the case fairly, but was not the IBA's argument based upon the fact that it did not have the money to do it itself, rather than upon principle?

Mr. English: I am coming to the point about money. It is certainly relevant. However, at present I suggest that there is something else that is relevant.
One point that has not been mentioned—I do not stress it—is that one would


imagine that a parliamentary unit, rather like the staff of Hansard, would not be particularly prone to industrial disputes. If there is an industrial dispute on any broadcasting channel, the broadcast will not be heard on it. Under the present proposal, if there is an industrial dispute in the BBC, as there was at the time of the opening of Parliament, independent radio will not be allowed to broadcast because of a dispute that is none of its doing. That is only a minor point. I do not stress it greatly, but it is one extra reason since the first Select Committee for a broadcasting unit.
The real difficulty that we face is that the first Select Committee was not a hand-picked and packed body but a large body chaired by Tom Driberg before he became a Peer. Careful thought was given to the matter and one reason for the House originating the feed is the question of copyright.
In the previous debate the Lord President and the Minister of State said "Ah, but we may have to consider copyright again". The fact is that they have not done so. There is no Bill to take away the copyright of the BBC and to return it to the House of Commons. That is a matter of some importance, because it involves money. This is where we come back to the question of money.
The Chairman of this Select Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford), indicated fairly that at the time that his Select Committee sat there was great pressure from the Treasury to cut public expenditure. We all remember the occasion. There was great reluctance to have the House of Commons, or the Exchequer, paying for the capital and current costs of a House of Commons broadcasting unit. I think that we can understand that sort of climate, but that is not the present climate. This year there is a climate in which it is suggested that we give away money in the sense of reducing taxes, a laudable policy. If we wish, we can afford to set up a broadcasting unit more readily than when it was first considered.
As the Select Committee always pointed out, the income would then accrue back to us. The copyright would be ours. Although we would permit others to use it in any way they chose and we would not interfere with their editorial free-

dom, with the exception of satire, there is no particular reason for us providing Parliament, at considerable cost, for the purpose of giving the broadcasting authorities, or companies, an extra source of revenue. If the copyright is vested in them, that is exactly what will occur.
The last but most important point of all as regards a broadcasting unit is the precedent that we are setting. There is a division of opinion among hon. Members on whether the House should be televised. However, even the most bitter opponent of televising the House would not deny the assumption that some future House of Commons—perhaps in the next Parliament or the one after that—might by a majority decide to have television. If it did so decide, it is entirely possible that it would look back to the precedent of radio broadcasting and ask itself "How was that done? Let us do it the same way."
Next, we come to the question of who controls the cameras. There would be six or perhaps eight cameras, but only one would be going out on the feed at any one time. Who is to choose what is shown? Is it to be the picture of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who, thoughtful in appearance, is seen to be writing his notes, or is it to be the picture of another hon. Member chatting in the background and appearing inattentive? That is a matter of some importance. I am not stressing it now, because we are discussing radio broadcasting.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman's amendment has not been selected, and we bow to the Chair in that respect, but will he give the House an indication of which way he views the Government's proposition, bearing in mind that there is no chance of having a House of Commons broadcasting unit?

Mr. English: I do not think that there is no chance. I shall come to that point. It is the way in which I propose to end my remarks.
The situation is utterly clear. There are still a few hon. Members who do not wish to have radio broadcasting, but it is absolutely clear that the majority do. It is equally clear, in my opinion, that there are many people composing part of that majority—enough, I think, to join with the opponents of broadcasting to


swing the vote—who wish to see it done only under the conditions of having a House of Commons broadcasting unit.
The Leader of the House gave an assurance that we should have the opportunity to consider this. Because the amendment was selected neither on the last occasion nor this, we have not had that opportunity. But the Leader of the House has given an assurance. I realise that he was not personally responsible for the non-selection of the amendment. However, if he will assure us that we shall have an opportunity to vote on the question of the unit, I am sure that that will speed our proceedings tonight. If he does not offer some opportunity, however brief, for a few words and a vote, he will be in a very difficult situation, because the motion itself is not final, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware.
Six people have still to be appointed: not necessarily the same six. The Leader of the House will not get that through easily if he deliberately blocks the discussion that we all want and on which we want to vote.
Will the Leader of the House please let us discuss the question of a parliamentary unit? If he does not, passionate supporter of broadcasting as I am, I am afraid that I shall be forced to go into the "No" Lobby tonight, and I shall advise everyone who thinks likewise in such circumstances to do the same. That is not because I do not want to see broadcasting introduced as soon as possible. I do want that, but I want to see it done in the way that was first recommended to the House.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: I have intervened in the debate, especially on the subject of the amendment that was not selected. I should like now to draw the attention of the House to the function of the broadcasting Committee.
I noticed that in his preamble the Minister said that he hoped that this would be the same Committee as had sat previously.

Mr. William Price: I said that originally there was some thought of that. Certainly it had worked so well that we hoped that it might have been possible. But time has gone on. That has lapsed. It is not now the intention.

Mr. Freud: I am grateful for that elucidation.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the needs of this Committee. As the amendment has not been selected, it seems that if we are to have the broadcasting of the House controlled by a Committee, it should be made clear what the function of that Committee is, I think that it seems to all of us that we in the House of Commons must reserve the right of censorship and of control over whatever comes out of the broadcasting of the House.
I remind the Minister that the previous Committee was part of the Services Committee of the House of Commons and, whereas it was an admirable body, on which at one time I served, the criteria for selecting members of the Services Committee rested with the party Whips. The Members who were selected to serve on that Committee were selected for their suitability to serve on the then Sub-Committees of the Services Committee, which dealt with catering, the Library and accommodation. I urge the Minister to remember when he selects his new Committee that the people who will be most jealous of House of Commons censorship of broadcasting will be representatives of minority parties, who will want to ensure that their representatives get a fair crack of the whip when it comes to minutes of broadcasting.
It would be exceedingly stupid if we had more than one Select Committee on this subject. Therefore, the House of Lords should also be represented. I believe that six members is an impossibly small number if the Lords, the minority parties, the Government and the Opposition are all to be represented and are all to have a say in what will and what will not go out from this broadcasting unit.
I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, due thought will be given to the identity and quality of the members of the Committee rather than simply the fact that they happen to be on the Services Committee or are eligible by virtue of age or eminence.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: The fact that there are already more parties in the House than the number of members proposed for the Committee illustrates some of the difficulties which


the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has been discussing. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary spoke with all the misplaced serenity of somebody who believes that the vote will be carried riot by those listening to the argument but by those who will be summoned by the Division bells.

Mr. William Price: I should have thought that this week of all weeks was a bad one in which to take that view.

Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend should have learnt from experience—and perhaps he still will. We have not yet had the Division.
I want to put to my hon. Friend what I think is the essence of the debate. We are not discussing whether we should have broadcasting. We are discussing how we should have it. The two sides joined in combat tonight are not, on the one hand, those in favour of broadcasting and, on the other hand, an assortment of reactionaries—the quill pen and sealing wax brigade—who want everything to go back to the archaisms of the eighteenth century.
However, there is a clear division, expressed by those who tabled the amendments which have not been called, between those who believe that we can leave broadcasters to get on with it and have a loose ex post facto control exercised through this ramshackle Select Committee and those who believe that ab initio professionals should be involved in the service of the House, because those of us who believe that believe as a first principle that broadcasting should serve Parliament, not that Parliament should serve broadcasting.
To achieve that, even in the circumstances of the limited sound broadcasting that we have now but much more so in the television broadcasting that many of us believe will occur in the next Parliament or the one after, we shall need greater control over the style and form of the output—not over the content or the censoring of words—than is envisaged in the notion of this Select Committee. That is why we should consider perhaps other precedents and the way in which the matter has been dealt with in other places before we deal with it in the way proposed.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that it will cost money. Of

coure it will. It may cost £80,000, give or take what we get for the charges for the output. My hon. Friend also said that the broadcasters, who have a vested interest in this matter, are not keen on amateurish meddling; they would rather that their own professionals dealt with it. But nobody in favour of the amendments which have not been called is in favour of putting amateurs in charge of production of the output. We are not suggesting that tea ladies or badge messengers should be drafted in to do this job. We should recruit a small group of professional broadcasters whose loyalty is to the House and who are in a position analogous to that of Officers of the House. They should be responsible to us. In those circumstances we should not need a special Select Committee. They would be responsible to the Services Committee.
There is a clear parallel for that situation. The House of Commons in Canada has recently introduced radio and television broadcasting. It has set up a broadcasting unit which is responsible to the Services Committee of the Canadian House of Commons. When the members of the Committee came to this country recently they told us of their experience of the first few months of broadcasting, and they said something which was very heartening—namely, that most Canadian Members of Parliament accepted broadcasting, even those who had been suspicious about it in the past. They told us that a number of Members had made minor grumbles about who had been on and what the picture looked like, but, most important, they said that they were immersed in the question of the professional output and that they had professional staff who worked for them to put the output together and get it out. They knew something about it.
The great danger in the Select Committee in the form proposed is that it will meddle in the matters which are least important and could be most malicious and it will not have sufficient technical knowledge to consider matters of form and technical content and ingredients—[Interruption.]
The motion states in archaic language that persons will be appointed
to elucidate matter of complexity
Are these persons different in kind from the small number of professional staff who


might be recruited to form a nucleus of a broadcasting unit? If they are, why? Is it that the Government or the Officers of the House have decided that we cannot take a few people on to the parliamentary Vote so that the job can be done properly? We are not talking about the first few months but of years and decades after that when the output and input of parliamentary broadcasting will be far more complex and in more forms than is now envisaged.
The Minister says that the Select Committee could stop broadcasting but that is foolish. We do not want to stop it or censor it. All we want to do is to have measured control which allows the broadcasters to use their integrity but leaves responsibility to the House of Commons.
I end as I began. If the Lord President were still here, but he has unfortunately gone away again—

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Before the hon. Member sits down, may I put a question to him? I know something of his extensive professional broadcasting experience. I think that he knows something about my fairly extensive broadcasting experience. Does he not think that it might be worth while for us both to say that in our professional opinion we regard a broadcasting unit at the service of the House as absolutely essential?

Mr. Whitehead: I welcome the opportunity to put that on record. I have been a professional broadcaster for many years. But here knowledge is a major disqualification to speaking. For many years I have been responsible for outside broadcasts from party conferences and so on. I know the problems of selection and of the pressures from news editors. During the debate on the Address in 1959, when talking of the possibility of televising Parliament, Aneurin Bevan said that people were chosen to appear on television at the ipse dixit of the broadcasters. That would be so unless there were the parliamentary control of a broadcasting unit.
It will be easier to stop it if it appears wrong if we have a unit. It will be easier to stop it then than to impose control after broadcasting has begun.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Although it is of a non-pecuniary nature, I declare an interest as a member of the General Advisory Council of the BBC.
I find the debate a sad and sorry occasion. I came here hoping that we were seeing the last move in a long drawn-out saga. It seems a long time ago since we had the experiment in broadcasting—which I believe was successful. It seems a long time since we debated the principle of broadcasting. Yet we heard the Minister saying that, whether the motion is passed or not, it matters not a damn. At another stage he said that it would be wrong to go ahead if the motion failed.

Mr. William Price: Where did the hon. and learned Gentleman get the phrase "It does not matter a damn?" He did not get it from me. He is attributing it to me. Will he accept my assurance that I said no such thing?

Mr. Carlisle: If the Minister thought that I was attributing that phrase to him, I assure him that that is not what I intended. I said that that was the impression he gave, but the words were mine, not his. The Minister said at one stage that, whether or not this motion was passed, broadcasting would start after Easter. I made it clear that he did not use the words in question, and I am not suggesting that he did. I said that the impression he gave was that it did not matter a damn. Later he said that it would be wrong to go ahead if the motion was not carried.
It would be a great tragedy if the motion were not carried if the effect of that would be that the Minister felt that it would be wrong to go ahead. The only danger of this motion not being carried arises from the fact that the Government have got themselves into an interminable and regular muddle as a result of which we may not get the broadcasting we want.
Frankly, I do not believe that there is a case for a broadcasting unit. In the end it is a question of whether we trust the BBC. I believe that there is a great deal of unjust criticism of the BBC. The Conservatives tend to say that it has a totally Left-wing bias. I suspect that a lot of Labour Members feel that it is unfair


to their side. I believe that the programmes "Yesterday in Parliament" and "Today in Parliament" cannot be criticised for political bias. During the period of the experiment there was no fair criticism of political bias. Those who are likely to carry out this operation within the brodcasting authorities can be trusted, subject to the general control that the House commands in being able to criticise the BBC for providing a politically biased programme.
I therefore see no case for a broadcasting unit, and I wonder whether there is a case for a Select Committee. I am concerned that, as a result of the mess that the Government seem to have got themselves into, we might lose the opportunity to get on with broadcasting the proceedings of this House, which I believe has been the wish of this House for a long time. The principle has been supported for a long time and has been welcomed by the public during the experimental period.
I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr English) will not carry his threat to a Division and vote against the motion because he feels that he has been done out of the debate he wanted.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Ben Ford: Like the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) I should like to make clear that, after our examination of the results of the broadcasting experiment, and in view of the undertaking given by the broadcasting authorities, the implied slurs upon the probity of those authorities in issuing the signal should be rebutted.
The first paragraph of memorandum 7 in the second report of the Joint Committee says:
In broadcasting from the Houses of Parliament, the BBC and the IBA would seek to give a true and accurate account of the proceedings. Both organisations would hope, in their total coverage of Parliamentary proceedings, to widen and deepen public understanding of Parliament and its role in our democracy.
Those are worthy objectives, and the experiment bore out that the broadcasting authorities intended and were capable of carrying out those objectives. If hon. Members care to look at the reports of the Committee which considered the experiment, they will see that there was only one semblance of a complaint over

the whole month of broadcasting. That does not seem to indicate a great volume of dissatisfaction with what took place at that time.
Questions have been asked about the purpose of a Select Committee. As has been pointed out by the Parliamentary Secretary, it will act as a two-way communication between the broadcasters and the House in the manner that the Broadcasting Sub-Committee of the Services Committee acted during the experiment.
There were continuing tasks for the Committee to carry out. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) blithely talked about copyright being vested in the House of Commons. We took evidence from the Solicitor-General, we had memoranda from the Home Office, the Department of Trade and so on about copyright. It is an extremely complex matter, as lawyer Members know.
The question is in whom the copyright should reside. That is no easy matter Should it be the Controller of the Stationery Office, the Clerks, the Speaker? One way to get on with the business of broadcasting and perhaps to relegate the matter to the Select Committee for further consideration is to pass the motion.
The Committee, in its recommendations, refers to establishing a trust to take up copyright on the clean feed archival tape of the House. That matter was referred to the Select Committee for further consideration.
These difficult and complex matters cannot easily be settled. If we do not pass the motion, the House will be placed in difficulty and may postpone the desirable object of beginning broadcasting very soon.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am in favour of passing the motion, if possible, because I am in favour of sound broadcasting of our proceedings, and I certainly want it to start at Easter, as projected.
The Parliamentary Secretary and the Lord President of the Council have only themselves to blame for the inept manner in which they have conducted the debate. They had abundant opportunity in recent times to have the matter considered and for us to recognise that there was a real issue for them to decide—namely,


whether there should be a broadcasting unit and, if not, to ensure that there was adequate and proper protection.
I have an open mind on whether there should be a broadcasting unit or a Select Committee. I have carefully considered the provisions regarding the Select Committee. They are wholly inadequate. In fact, they go into too much detail.
I entirely subscribe to the view partially expressed by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) in drawing attention to the paragraph of the motion dealing with powers. That is an extremely nebulous and narrow part of the rules to be laid down. The motion provides:
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge
—I agree with that so far as it goes, but they are then severely limited—
either to supply information which is not readily available
—that is nebulous and virtually meaningless—
or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the matters referred to them".
That is a complete nonsense. If the members of that Committee are unable
to elucidate matters of complexity relating
to broadcasting, they should not be on the Committee. However, I am sure that, with the fairly extensive knowledge and experience of those who will be members of the Committee, they will be able to elucidate most of the matters referred to them.
A small, expert staff is required for two purposes: first, to advise the Committee on matters relating to broadcasting and, secondly, to provide the necessary information—that is, normal monitoring. Naturally the members of the Committee will be dependent on reports whether there has been fair and balanced broadcasting generally—not the editorial content—of the manner in which the House conducts its business.
For example, the broadcasters may decide to confine their attention almost entirely to Question Time, not to the substance of debates in this Chamber. They may decide not to report Adjournment debates. They may always go to bed early and never deal with the summing-up speeches in debates. They may exclude entirely all matters taking place either in Select Committees or Standing

Committees. They may decide that all matters in Committee on Finance Bills on the Floor of the House are not of any great interest. In those ways, what I call the balance and nature of the work of the House will not be adequately and properly expressed. I am not saying that they will. I am saying that they may. It seems to me that we shall need the monitoring to inform the members of the Select Committee so that they can recognise that there is not a balance since they will not have heard all the broadcasts—we are dealing not just with the morning "Today" programme but with others—and, furthermore, they will need those with expert knowledge to explain the difficulties of the editors and the question of balance of control.

Mr. William Price: These are important matters, but they will have to be kept under continuing review. But is there an organisation and are there people with more experience than those in the BBC who produce programmes such as "Today in Parliament", and does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that they have not over many years kept a proper balance in their programmes?

Mr. Rees-Davies: "Today in Parliament" is an admirable programme. But it is also well known that there are a number of people in the BBC who, over recent years, have been fighting against the incursion and intrusion of people with extreme Left-wing views trying to spoil the balance of what certain broadcasters have been determined to maintain. I shall not name names, naturally. But what is true today might not be true tomorrow. We are dealing with a situation which may change completely over the years ahead. Let us suppose that the balance changed. This House would have to be protected against the change which might occur if someone with an extreme minority view was able to control the channels of communication.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In this House there are many hon. Members who perform regularly in Question Time, and there are others who appear very infrequently but who play a major part in Committee or Select Committee work. Will it be fair to those hon. Members who play a major part in the consideration of legislation upstairs in Standing Committees and in the


work of Select Committees if the people in charge in the BBC choose to direct the majority of any programme about this place towards the activity in the Chamber rather than towards the activities in Select Committees or Standing Committees?

Mr. Rees-Davies: I take my hon. Friend's point, as one who rarely, if ever, puts a Question in the House but who tries to participate in the other work of this place. But that is only part of the balance.
The real problem is that any Select Committee that is to do a good job meeting only occasionally will require to have a staff. That staff will have to monitor and advise, and that is not within the terms of the motion. Experts merely appointed on an occasional basis are not enough. I smell the hand of the Treasury here, seeking, to limit the powers of the Select Committee. If the objective of ensuring a fair balance and upholding the principles of democracy and giving a fair reflection of the workings of this House is to be met, the motion is neither clear enough nor strong enough to achieve it.

Mr. Ford: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it would be entirely within the province of the Select Committee when it was appointed to make reports and recommendations to the House, including, if it thought it necessary, a recommendation that staff should be appointed?

Mr. Rees-Davies: That would go a long way. It is my inclination to vote for the motion and if I were a member of the Select Committee I should want to see an adequate and proper staff, and there would be a hell of a row until we got it.

Mr. William Price: Would it help if I gave the assurance that, if we were to set up the Select Committee and if it decided that it wanted that staff, or went further and decided that it wanted a parliamentary unit—it is conceivable that it might, and it is conceivable that it might not—that is a matter that we should have to consider very carefully?

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am going to sit down very quickly and give my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) a chance to take that up.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: There has been a great deal of criticism in the debate about the Government's handling of this matter. I. wish to make no criticism of the Government's putting down the motion, because many hon. Members, whatever their views, have wanted to make progress with reaching a decision. I wish to put the best conceivable construction on the Government's intentions, but this has been an extraordinarily unsatisfactory debate.
The debate started with the proposition that an undertaking given by the Leader of the House to some of his hon. Friends had not been, in their view, properly fulfilled. An undertaking not fulfilled starts us off on a wrong basis, and until the last few speeches we have not really got down to the meat of the matter—the construction of a Select Committee and what it is going to do.
Before the chopper falls, I want to point out that the business motion to allow one-and-a-half hours for the debate does not in any sense require us to come to a conclusion. Earlier I said that in the circumstances which had arisen by 11 o'clock, it would be right to withdraw the motion. That did not happen, and rightly, I think, because hon. Members have been able to make their contributions about the whole problem. The Leader of the House was right to air the matter. But problems have arisen and he cannot expect the House to come to a conclusion, since, until recently, some of the real meat of the proposition had not been discussed. I think that many hon. Members felt that the amendment would be in order, but it was not. That was a correct ruling on your part, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it put the House into difficulty.
We had the debate beginning with the Parliamentary Secretary saying more or less that, whatever happened, after Easter broadcasting would begin. That is the impression he gave. I think that that was maladroit. Handling the situation in that way clearly caused upset to everyone in the House whether he believed in broadcasting or not. It is not a satisfactory way to proceed.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) suggested that the Select Committee could come forward with recommendations as to whether there should be


a parliamentary broadcasting unit, but that could not be within its province. That is a matter for the House to decide. This is the issue that many hon. Members below the Gangway wanted debated. I therefore suggest to the Leader of the House, without going further into the merits of the case, that the right course in all the circumstances, having had one-and-a-half hours of debate, would be to conclude the debate on another night.

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I am very much concerned, and always have been, with the broadcasting of the proceedings—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed this day.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (LIBRARY)

12.1 a.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), in their Fifth Report, in the last Session of Parliament, on Computer-based Indexing for the Library.—[Mr. Foot.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The amendment has been selected.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the main Question to be proposed and the amendment taken afterwards, or do you wish me to move the amendment now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The main Question has already been proposed.

Mr. Spearing: In that case, I shall continue, but I had thought that the main Question would be spoken to either by someone from the Front Bench or possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Buchanan). If my hon. Friend wishes to rise, I shall certainty give way.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: I think the understanding was that I would move the motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The position, unfortunately, is that I have called the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) will have an opportunity of speaking in due course.

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
Provided that at least one manual system of indexing Parliamentary business and papers is maintained".
I bow to your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and continue. It gives me a very good introduction, because I was about to say that we seem to have had a procedural day of it, and this last item is no exception to that unfortunate experience. Not only is this motion for the Services Committee not being moved by either the Lord President or anyone from his Department—[Interruption.] I stand corrected. It was moved by a nod, but it has not been moved in a speech. One


would have thought that before an amendment was moved we might have had an exposition of the motion that is before the House. But I will leave that point and move on to the other point about procedure.
I should like first to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn for his very great patience over the matter which we are discussing tonight. The motion first appeared on the Order Paper as long ago as 26th July last year. I also thank for their patience the Librarian and some of his staff, who have borne the brunt of the delay that we have had in the matter coming to the Floor.
It is at this point that I come back to the matter of procedure. On the night of 26th July last, when there was a debate concerning the conduct of hon. Members, this motion was put down. There was also a business motion relating to exempted business. There were three or four items of exempted business which were given exemption. I understand that there had been a request that this item should also be exempted for that night. That view has not been denied by anybody in authority. My hon. Friend and I attended the House that evening, expecting to have a short debate on this matter, without necessarily coming to a division of any sort. But \A e were denied that opportunity because the matter—unlike the two or three others that day, relating to broadcasting, Members' salaries, and so on—was not exempted.
We thought that there was a mistake and we came again on subsequent occasions and found that the subject had not been exempted. Indeed, it has not been given exemption on about 20 occasions. Maybe this is a record—I do not know—but on about 20 occasions I or my hon. Friends or Opposition Members have been here at the hour of interruption and objected to the motion, to which I am moving an amendment, going through on the nod. It may be that the Lord President had his reasons for moving it in this way. That has meant that for six months the proposals of the Services Committee have been effectively blocked. To some extent I have had to bear the brunt of the criticisms.
I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Lord President present, because my view was that the onus was on him to

provide the time. I know that my right hon. Friend is besieged by hon. Members on all sides asking for debates. Every Thursday he is besieged by people asking for time. He cannot give time to everyone. He must provide for Government, Opposition and Supply time. I appreciate his problems.
But if he is suggesting that it is selfish of a person such as myself to block a proposal on 23 occasions in order to get a debate, or if he feels that I am pressing my own particular debate in favour of great matters of the day which demand precedence, I would ask him to think again. It is the case that other hon. Members who ask for debates are asking for debates on subjects that they wish to discuss, either through their own motions or through a motion of the Government. On this occasion the motion was not mine, but that of my right hon. Friend and the Services Committee putting a report to this House.
Although the motion may merit being passed, as I think it will be, it is not acceptable for the Lord President to suggest that the only condition he will accept for a motion that he puts down is that it be passed undebated. Alas, I believe that has been the result of his continued efforts to get this motion through on the nod. He has done that on about 20 occassions. I am sorry that this has happened, but I sincerely believe that my right hon. Friend has seen this matter the wrong way round.
Had he enabled the debate to take place for half an hour at the end of a day, he would not have displaced any other business. This terrible delay would not have taken place had an exemption motion been put on the Order Paper. I am afraid that this debate does not seem to be immune from the procedural problems that we have faced this week neither, alas has every debate this evening.
I turn to the actual subject, that of Library indexing. The Library is part of a hon. Member's tools. It has excellent research facilities and the indexing of this House is part of the Back Bencher's weapon against the Executive. It is the Library's excellent information and research facilities that provide the Back Bencher with his material.
I happen to be a fairly regular customer in the Library. I appreciate what


it does and I appreciate the indexes that we have at present. I am not saying for a moment that we should not have some form of computerisation of these indexes. I am not one of those hon. Members who say "No" to every change. But I do believe that if we are to have change, particularly in the tools which Back Benchers use against the Executive, the case for that change must be made out.
Such a case is contained in the report of the Services Committee—House of Commons Paper No. 377, Session 1976–77. It is exactly the same procedure which the Services Committee used when it made out a case for the underground car park, which caused some bother when that proposal also went through on the nod.
It is right that in all matters affecting the ability of Back Benchers to question the Executive we should have the opportunity to put in a word of caution, or ask questions of those responsible for the proposed changes. That is what I want to do tonight. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept what I think is a reasonable and relatively insignificant amendment.
I first want to refer to costs. As usual in arguments of this sort—people in local government will be well aware of the sort of officers' reports they receive—we are able to compare the manual indexes with the computer system. In the report to which I have referred the computer system comes out with some financial advantage.
I wish to draw attention to the report of the Public Accounts Committee in the 1976–77 Session, House of Commons Paper 536. Civil Service witnesses were being questioned about the average life of computers, and this is set out at Question 3089:
What is the average life that you would give to computers?
The answer was:
Hitherto, we have worked on the basis of an average life of around seven years, but one of the things that we have been doing in the interests of economy is to see whether we cannot stretch the life of the computers that we have got, and we should like to be able to keep them going for more like ten years.
But costings in respect of the Library are not related to a period of seven years,

which would be reasonable, but 10 years. The Civil Service in its evidence to that Committee was saying "Let us try for 10 years". Therefore, if a shorter period of seven years is taken, it will work out at a considerable sum.
We see from paragraph 16 of the Select Committee report on the Library that over a period of 10 years the computer would cost £1,149,200 compared with a figure of £1,223,000 for the manual alternative. But it must be remembered that computers wear out, and I take it that after a life span of 10 years or so we should need another, whereas the manual alternative would not require the same amount of capital investment.
I question whether the Library costings are fair. We know that when one puts in a computer or goes in for large capital expenditures, invariably costs mount. I am not saying that we should not go in for this process because of that factor, but I ask the responsible Committee to watch the matter carefully because usually hidden escalations must be taken into account.
What also worries me is the fact that the computer will be run and serviced by the Civil Service Department. We all know that Hansard is run by the Stationery Office and that it does the House pretty well, but it should be pointed out in this case that these crucial tools of the Back Bencher are to be handled by an executive agency of government. The difference between the reproduction of Hansard and the installation of computers is very great, indeed. Although there are some similarities, I would point out that there are some dissimilarities, too. It is a matter of principle of which we should not be unaware.
We must also take note of the fact that this is the first time that the Library has sought to put these matters on a computer. In other words, the House of Commons is to be used as a guinea pig and as something of an experiment. I suppose one cannot quarrel about a principle of that sort, but is is a matter in which one should urge caution, because we are heavily dependent on these facilities. Presumably, there will be some spin-off to give experience elsewhere in House in this instance. I am not sure


whether we shall be the trial ground for the computer used by the Library.
I understand that the computer will not be on the premises here. Again, that is not a matter of principle, but the fact that it will not necessarily be in the ownership of the Civil Service is a subject for comment. I gather that if we pass this motion tonight, it will be open to the House or the Civil Service to hire a computer from an agency. I believe that these matters should be stated publicly, because they are matters that merit the exercise of caution.
Let us turn to the subject of accessibility. One great advantage of the computer will be that it can reproduce these facilities on desks throughout the House—in the Library, in Norman Shaw House and in centres throughout the precincts. There will be print-off facilities, so that not only will the information be screened but, at the touch of a few buttons, teleprinter will spew out one's Questions from last Session, or whenever it may be, assuming that the programme allows one to do that. Therefore, the programme and the assumptions contained in it will be important. It may not relate to the sort of things Back Benchers want, although I think it probably will.
Nevertheless, it raises much bigger questions if this is to be available throughout the precincts of the House. Will the House make key-in facilities available elsewhere? Will 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office have terminals? Will there be terminals in each Government Department, in the Scottish Assembly, if one is ever set up, or in the European Assembly? Will outside organisations be able to pay a fee and plug into this network?
This is an important matter, because, notionally, this is public information. The index to Hansard is public and is available in public libraries. The House's index is also partly public. It is not private, but it is not accessible to the public, commercial organisations, lobbyists or others with interests. If we have the computer, shall we be asked later to offset some of the cost by hiring the facilities for a charge? Why should we not? It is public information.
While the information is public in the sense that it is not private, access by line, print-out or screen by Government

Departments or other organisations would put the private individual at a relative disadvantage, and this is a matter that we should consider carefully. A person with whom I was recently discussing computers pointed out—and I have no detailed knowledge of this point—that we should also consider the question of keys. Will the key code be known to all outside organisations or only to those paying a fee? These matters need clarification.
I had hoped that these topics would be mentioned in the report and it is unfortunate that they were not. I have not mentioned all of them to my right hon. Friend who has been kind in his correspondence with me, because some of the matters have been raised with me only in the past few days.
I think that I have said enough to justify the debate. If we had not blocked the motion on 20 occasions, these questions would not have been asked and they would not be on the record. It is important that they should be asked, because I understand that another Committee has been set up to deal with computer matters in the House. But what about another place? I understand that there are developments involving computers in the House of Lords.
Is it also proposed to introduce a computer into the Vote Office? We know that it has thousands of past and present EEC documents. Are they to be put on a computer? Is that to be part of the link?
How far has the Library Committee gone into the side effects and repercussions of such a system? We know that commonsense decisions often have unacceptable side effects that have greater significance than what was originally foreseen. I can foresee many changes if these marvellous machines are to be made available to hon. Members in many different places and to outside organisations
My amendment does not take account of these fears. It asks only for the retention of a manual index for the time being. Apart from all the other considerations that I have raised, the report would give carte blanche to the Services Committee to decide when it was reasonable for the existing manual index to be phased out. I do not believe that it is necessarily a good idea to allow


the Committee to say that the manual index will remain only until it thinks that the new system is working efficiently. That should be a matter for the House and I hope that the Minister will assure us that the manual index, which, once broken, cannot easily be replaced, will remain until another report from the Library Committee or another Committee is brought to the House.
I have asked only for one part to remain, that relating to parliamentary business. My hon. Friend has written to me in answer to a question saying that it would cost £12,000 a year. I do not think that that would be a large sum for the House to pay in order to retain a manual index of the most important part of parliamentary affairs. If we are to spend more than £1 million on computerisation—and I suspect that in the end it will be much more—is £12,000 for a standby asking too much? I do not think so. It is probably rather less than the cost to the public of one hon. Member, his secretary, and his travelling expenses and his living expenses in London. It is not significant in the costs of the House, but it could be very significant in the manner in which it is run and the way in which Back Benchers can keep a tag on the Executive. Every hon. Member who is not on the Front Bench is interested in that.
That is the purport of my amendment. I am not seeking to hold the matter up on any of the other grounds I have mentioned, although I think that they are valid and important in their own right. I have put them only in words of warning. But I think that the £12,000 for manual computing—and, after all, this decision will not have to be taken for some years—is a reasonable and wise request that any Back Bencher would make of the Executive.
I conclude but for one point. We have seen some strange procedural things happening in the House today. I did not for a moment think that I would be the first speaker in this debate. I have pointed out that it took a lot of trouble to get this debate at all. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Lord President was determined to get the motion through without any debate, if he could. He may have had second thoughts.
These facts alone should add greater weight to the plea for the amendment and for future Committees to take careful note of some of the matters I have mentioned and the other matters that will no doubt be brought to their attention.

12.22 a.m.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I had not intended to intervene, because, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, his amendment is very modest. But the way in which he moved it and the ground he covered seem to me to call for some comment. I was a member of the informal joint Houses of Parliament committee on computers and am now on the Computer Sub-Committee that has just been set up.
I may be misinterpreting the hon. Gentleman, but although he posed some fundamental questions the tenor of his remarks seemed to be negatived and sceptical, perhaps justifiably. The Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee will make his own case on the short-term efficiency needs for computerisation. Those are irrefutable and were not argued against by the hon. Gentleman, but he said that there was nevertheless a case for a modest manual system to continue alongside computerisation.
It was the much wider issues raised by the hon. Gentleman that seemed to me to be very important and to need some comment. The hon. Gentleman said, I think absolutely rightly, that computerisation of the Library had to be seen as part of hon. Members' tools, as part of their weapons against the Executive. That is absolutely fundamental. I see the role of the new Sub-Committee and the whole issue of computerisation in the House precisely in that light.

Mr. Spearing: Can the hon. Gentleman explain what the Sub-Committee is, who set it up, and to whom it is accountable?

Mr. Spicer: The onus is not on me to say, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it was set up by the Lord President. It is a Sub-Committee of the Services Committee. The hon. Gentleman was right in pointing out that it was exclusively concerned with the House of Commons. As I have said all along, I find that unsatisfactory for the reasons on which the hon. Member for Newham,


South touched. We sat for a year and a half as a joint informal committee with the other place. As the other place is in many respects more inventive than we in this House, it was worth trying to coordinate with that which it was doing. We are already seeing examples, but I shall not bore the House with the problems created by being a separate committee as that is rather a special point.
The most fundamental issue that the hon. Gentleman raised is computerisation for the Library, which will be used for one function. It is to be hoped that it will immeasurably improve the capacity of Members to gain access to information comparable to that held and used, and often used against Members, by the Executive. That is how I view the Library experiment. I see it as one step in that direction. There are many other steps that we shall have to take.
The Library is part of the process of improving the internal information available to Members, but that has to be seen in the context of links to external information, to Government information, to outside agencies and to the EEC. As for the links to the EEC, the other place has advanced considerably further than the House in achieving an effective linking system.
The hon. Gentleman did a great service to the House by raising these issues. However, I was surprised that he did so negatively and sceptically. If we handle matters properly, we are creating an opportunity. If we become clouded in jargon and obsessed by mechanics and complications, and find that there are too many people between us and the system, it will be a waste of money and a great shame. That is the worry that lies behind what is proposed.
Even from the amendment it seems that by doing something logical called computerisation we are making matters more difficult for the Member. If that is what happens, the whole thing should be thrown out. However, leaving aside the information, we should be creating something that makes life much easier for Members. The technology is available. We already have retrievable information systems around us that are easy to interrogate. They enable anyone to ask simple questions and receive direct answers. If the system does not provide a direct answer, we should complain and ask why

it has not been programmed properly so as to give the answer.
The purpose of the experiment, and the purpose of setting up all the wider objectives of the committee dealing with computers, must be to serve the House, especially against the Executive. I was saddened by the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I accept that he has conducted events admirably—I accept that the matter could have gone through on the nod—but I am anxious that we should view the experiment positively. bearing in mind the whole time that if it becomes bogged down in technology and impossible for Members to use directly without the assistance of a whole tribe of people, the hon. Gentleman and others will be right to throw it out.

Mr. Spearing: I apologise for again interrupting the hon. Member. I do not think that he could detect anything in my speech saying that we should throw it out, or that it would not be of help to hon. Members. In fact, I went out of my way to say that that was not my purpose. I hope that the hon. Member will accept that. All that I was saying was that there may be certain risks which ought to be taken into account.

Mr. Spicer: I apologise if I have been putting words into the hon. Member's mouth in any way.
What I am conscious of—I am not sure whether the hon. Member was even getting at this point—is that if in this small Sub-Committee we become obsessed with the technology and simply pick this and that just because it looks like the latest technology, that will be dreadful. Our obsession should be purely with the precise point with which the hon. Member introduced his remarks. That is to say, we should be there to try to do something to increase the effectiveness of Members in getting that information which they need in order to question and to carry out their monitoring role vis-à-vis the Executive.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: I am sorry that I seem to be coming in at the wrong end of the debate. However, I do not think that that is anyone's fault.
I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South


(Mr. Spearing). I hope to take up many of the points that he made. First, however, I thank him straight away for the compliments that he paid to the staff of the Library. They richly deserve them.
One of the reasons why I welcome the debate is that it is one of the few occasions on which we can focus attention on the Library and the excellent job that it does for Members. The content of many of the better speeches made in the House is usually the product of the Library research department. The Services Committee and the Library Sub-Committee are the servants of the House. We seek constantly to improve the lot of the Member in respect of services.
My hon. Friend has done a valuable job in getting this debate. I join with him in deploring the delay that has taken place in this matter being brought before the House.
Hon Members are entitled, for whatever reason they think fit, to have their say in such a large programme as that envisaged in the computerisation of the indexes in the Library. Already we have lost the services of a computer specialist. We have lost seven months. If the House approves the motion, as I hope it will, it will take at least 12 to 18 months before this matter can get under way.
As my hon. Friend said, he has not held up the motion by any opposition to the computer. He has repeated that. But he wants us to retain part of the old manual strip index system. Part of my job tonight is to explain why I think that this is not as easy or as possible as my hon. Friend thinks it is.
I think that there was a genuine misunderstanding at the beginning of this project. I think that it was assumed that there were nine sets of indexes. In fact, there was one set of nine indexes. When Norman Shaw Building was opened, the Library duplicated four indexes in Norman Shaw. But the indexes covered are as follows: parliamentary business, progress of Bills, parliamentary Questions—not indexed but simply listed—Royal Commissions and departmental committees, British domestic affairs, international affairs, EEC affairs, EEC legislation, and science and technology.
What hon. Members have before them in the Fifth Report of the Services Com

mittee is the result of a long, cautious and careful look at the use to which computers could be put in the Library to improve and to multiply indexes. I assure my hon. Friend that the Library is not a guinea pig in this respect. The British Library is already looking at a computer. I think that its name is Blaise. The Library of Congress in the United States has it, and Canada has it. We are not pushing the threshold of technology. We are dealing with a well-tried technology.
It is almost 10 years to the day since the Library first considered the question of computers, when the Atomic Energy Authority, with its laboratory at Culham. did a project here. ASLIB spent a year considering the prospect of introducing a computer in the Library. The Central Computer Agency did a survey. The informal joint committee considered the matter, and the Library Sub-Committee and the Services Committee have looked at it very carefully.
My hon. Friend wants to retain the present system, and I hope to give some of the reasons why we do not think it is possible. Apart from the Library—there are five working rooms in the main Library—there is accommodation in the Norman Shaw, North building, and it is to get accommodation in Norman Shaw, South. There are research assistants in Mr. Speaker's slat and on North Bridge. The research assistants and other employees have to trek up and down stairs, in and out of the Library, looking at the manual strip indexes. Indexes are not in the places where they should be. The staff, after they have looked at the index, have to go elsewhere and get the information.
The indexes were set up in 1955. Let us consider the extent to which the work of Parliament has increased since 1955. In 1967–68 the number of Questions was 24,837. In 1975–76, the number had increased to 42,307. In 1964 there were 5,252 pages in Statutory Instruments; in 1974, 8,669. Inquiries answered in writing by the research department amounted to 1,201 in 1966. In 1976 the number was 4,493. In 1968 there were 11,340 incoming telephone calls; in 1976, 46,769. We have joined the Common Market and Stormont has been prorogued. The change in the pattern of Select Committees and the volume of legislation have put an ever-increasing burden on the Library.
When the informal joint committee considered the matter, it was in no doubt about it. Paragraph 17 on page 4 of its report reads:
Heavy demands are made on the House of Commons Library. Staff generally satisfy individual enquiries but their speed and ease of doing so is handicapped by the shortage of staff and restricted availability of the tools which they require. It is not possible by existing methods to provide a full set of up-to-date indexes in the Norman Shaw North Library or to provide current indexes in the Library research rooms.
It continues:
The valuable information which the indexes contain is not exploited to its full potential.
In paragraph 18 the committee makes a recommendation:
It is essential to introduce a computer-based indexing system at the earliest possible date in order even to maintain the present high level of service. Members are demanding an increasingly exacting service, which the Library must try to anticipate, but there are certain areas in which improvements to the service cannot be achieved without computer assistance …
Thas is definite, from the investigation by the joint committee.
If one looks at the Fifth Report, page 5, paragraph, 4 one finds that no improvement can be made by manual methods and that indexing cannot keep pace with the demands made. Paragraph 5 states,
Even with the use of an automatic typewriter the system has been under stress, and there has been a marked deterioration in the accuracy, consistency and currency of the indexes.
On page 22 it is stated:
The Library's parliamentary index no longer provides all the information which may reasonably be expected from it.
It goes on:
It is not possible to provide any form of regular up-dating service to Members by manual means … very little cross-referencing or overlap exists between the indexes. Some parliamentary questions are entered both on the parliamentary questions index and on the international affairs index.
On page 31, paragraph 59 the Librarian states:
I could not guarantee continuing to give a thoroughly satisfactory indexing service with the present facilities for more than two or three years.
All this comes from a Library staff which is exceptionally well qualified and dedicated to providing an excellent service and from a staff which is expressing

fears and apprehensions that the present system of indexing will not meet the requirements asked of it.
I ask my hon. Friend whether he wants to continue with this method of strip indexing. What we propose in the Fifth Report is that the Librarian be authorised to proceed with the introduction of computer based indexing in the Library as soon as possible.
The advantages that we get of introducing this are many. I do not want to speak for long. All the details are on page 6, paragraph 7 of the report, but it might be advisable to get them on record. The following improved facilities are suggested:
"(a) the ability to consult all the Library's indexes from any one of a number of visual display units placed throughout the Library, including Norman Shaw (North), and at other selected locations in the Palace of Westminster
(b) the bringing together of one index of references on a given subject currently dispersed over nine separate indexes
(c) fundamental improvement in the quality of indexing which would permit index searches by:
(i) Members' names, authors' names, etc.
(ii) subject for all items
(iii) specific subjects or combinations of subjects
(iv) restriction of searches by date of publication and type of item, eg statutory instrument or command paper
(d) a central index to parliamentary questions, including subject indexing
(e) equipment to print out search results
(f) printed indexes for internal and (in time) external use
(g) current awareness services, designed to alert recipients to recent material subjects of particular interest to them
(h) a capability for statistically monitoring use of the system."
Those are some the advantages. The index is a vital tool to the Librarian and hon. Members. It should be time-saving and lead us into easier research. We can tell by our own un-indexed library files at home what a bad indexing system is. The manual strip index has served this House very well. My hon. Friend pays a very high tribute to the Library when he wants to retain it.

Mr. Spearing: I am not asking for a retention of the nine aspects covered, only of three—parliamentary business and papers, progress on Bills and parliamentary Questions. That is not even one complete set.

Mr. Buchanan: I said at the outset that my hon. Friend wanted to retain a part of it.
I want to thank on behalf of the Library Sub-Committee the Chairman of the Accommodation Sub-Committee for the effort he is making to accommodate the growing needs of the Library. We are very grateful to him for that—I refer to Norman Shaw, North and South and so on. If hon. Members are to be served without traipsing over to the main Library, they must have the visual units. The index could be consulted in a single search.
From previous statistics I have been given it is seen that hon. Members are demanding more and more of the Library, and none more so than my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South who makes great use of the Library. The joint informal committee and the Services Committee are convinced that this can be done only by introducing computer technology. I think that parliamentary Questions will be the first index that the Library will attempt.
I give my hon. Friend this assurance. The librarians are all very proud of their craft. They will not say that the computer is all right when it is not. They are the people who will be at the receiving end if it breaks down. They will not in any circumstances—and I think I speak here for the Library Sub-Committee as well—permit the manual index to be discontinued until we are absolutely certain that the computer is doing the job it was installed to do. Only after it has been proven and subjected to the stringent tests to which hon. Members and librarians will subject it will manual compilation of the index cease.
My hon. Friend is right when he speaks of the three indexes costing only £12,000, but we feel that this is an unnecessary and expensive duplication. Of course, hon. Members are worried that with the index appearing on a screen they will have to take notes. But there will be a print-out facility and that will enable the Library to up-date much more frequently the cumulative index that hon. Members find so useful.
My hon. Friend asked "Why an agency?". That is general practice in the trade, and other hon. Members are more expert than I in that. But the

House of Lords is tuned into the GLC computer. If we had our own computer it would mean that the room in which it was installed would have to be air conditioned and humidity controlled, and we should need highly qualified staff on the premises. Many of the techniques will go to a bureau. This was put to the CCA when it gave evidence. I asked how long it would take and was told that the sooner we got the questions through the better. The evidence continued, on page 18 of the Fifth Report:
At this stage we are not to sure what we are going to buy. We are going to go out to industry and we are going to say 'Here is our problem. How would you solve it?'. If, for example, the best solution were that we should go straight to a computer bureau, then there would be much less of a lead time in acquiring equipment. If on the other hand we decided that the best thing to do would be to acquire a small computer and house it on someone's premises, then that may take longer. This is the sort of thing that will come out when we receive the tenders, because each one of these suppliers will have to give us a clear-cut date when they can start operations.

Mr. Spicer: On a point of information. Will the decision to go ahead with the Hansard computer printing process provide any capacity to meet the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about going outside?

Mr. Buchanan: When that question was put to the CCA, it said that the installation of the computer in the Library would in no way depend on computer typesetting in Her Majesty's Stationery Office or interfere with computer projects envisaged by the Committee. That is normal business practice. I hope that we shall not stick on that matter.
The CCA promised that if there were a breakdown in the computer, it would be repaired almost immediately. But the Librarian and his assistants categorically state that they will be able to provide a back-up service from the printouts without great difficulty. We are dealing with well-established techniques. The Fifth Report sets out in great detail all aspects of the Library proposal, including the cost. Of course, £12,000 may not seem a large sum, but it is considerable.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South will withdraw his amendment and allow the Library to get


on with the job of getting the indexes into first-class readable form.

12.52 a.m.

Mr. Jasper More: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan). As he said, the reason for this proposal is the enormous increase in the volume of work with which the Library has to cope.
Without entering into the technicalities, I support the proposal under three heads. First, the manual system will, in the fairly near future, be overburdened to the extent that Members will not get the service to which they are entitled. Therefore, something must be done about it. Secondly, if the Library can introduce the proposed computerised services, it will be able to give to Members a service altogether better in the long run than they have had hitherto.
Thirdly—this is relevant to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—what is proposed is not a sudden conversion. This is a long-term proposal. I understand that it will take some years before the change-over is complete. In the meantime we shall have the safeguards to which the hon. Member for Springburn referred.
In the long term—perhaps seven or 10 years—the system will be more economical than to continue with the manual system. The initial expenditure may be considerable, but we have to look at this matter in the long term. It is on that basis that the Library Sub-Committee puts forward this proposal.

12.55 a.m.

Mr. Bruce George: I am pleased that no one has seen fit to dispute the need for computer-based indexing in the Library or to contribute to further delay in creating it. It is a matter of regret that it has taken so long to reach this stage. I do not apportion blame. A report in 1971 made many of the recommendations being made by the Committee, yet that 1971 report went the same way as many other reports and was consigned to a neat and dark pigeonhole. But the ideas have now been resuscitated, and I hope that we can get ahead quickly with modernising the Library.
The advent of the computer and exotic communications technology seems to have

by-passed this place. Although it is quite common elsewhere, it has not been incorporated into the operational procedures of the House of Commons. It is a matter of regret to me that we have fallen way behind that power house of innovation, the House of Lords. The fact that the other place is well in advance of us in the use of this sophisticated equipment is a matter which I regard with considerable regret.
I see the importance of modernising the Library as part of a general process by which this place adapts itself to the needs of a modern legislature. We have heard a great deal about the need for Select Committees to have more power. At long last, we are realising that reforming zeal occurs at infrequent intervals in this House. It may be that we are in a new phase of desiring to revitalise the powers of Parliament and, to my mind, the need for the Member of Parliament to have adequate information is an essential tool in the process of doing the job that we should be doing.
It is imperative that this House becomes more professional. It is important to professionalise our institutions and procedures. It is important to professionalise our offices. I do not think that one secretary is sufficient for a modern legislator. I am not arguing for the development of office staffs that American Congressmen have, but surely the gulf can be bridged between the one secretary of a British Member of Parliament and the 30 staff of a Congressman in the United States.
It is important to professionalise the Library, its staff and mode of operations and, dare I say it, we need to professionalise ourselves in many ways. One is compelled to ask how a group of nonspecialists can function in this modern and technically oriented society. The range of professionalism that we must possess is inifinite and the gulf between the ordinary Member of Parliament and the Executive is so wide as to be almost unbelievable, and it is widening daily. We are at a grave disadvantage vis-à-vis the Executive. It has the information that we largely lack. It has the internal communication that we often lack. It has the secrecy and often the loyalty that we seem to lack.
To assist us in this unequal struggle, we are aided by very able Library staff and


often by one secretary. In some cases, we are obliged to rely on the libraries of political parties or pressure groups. In my view, none of this is adequate for the job that we are supposed to do. I am full of admiration for the Library staff. I do not say that simply to pay lip service to them. They are excellent, and I am a frequent visitor to the Library for work purposes as well as more peaceful pursuits late at night.
There have been improvements in the Library over the past 10 years in response to the increasing demands placed upon it. But I wonder whether the changes which have taken place have been adequate. The research staff suffer many of the problems that we do. The work of legislators has increased beyond recognition, and I wonder whether the Library staff or ourselves are capable in the circumstances of handling this mass of information.
I believe that the Library requires more staff, including more research staff, allowing greater specialisation. We have spoken of our own needs, but we must equally consider the needs, demands and satisfaction of those who are professionally competent. They must be given proper facilities and the technology to do the job to their satisfaction as well as to ours.
Computer support is obviously only one component of the present-day development of library and information technology. We are just starting to use videotapes, micro-film and so on. Even the use of photo-copying equipment is not quite as open as some would desire. I believe that we must begin to modernise our operational procedures in the Library.
There are fewer research staff in our Library than a typical United States Senator has. I have seen Congressmen and their staffs at work. I have seen the Library of Congress, and I was overwhelmed by the facilities at Congress's disposal. It has a vast number of highly qualified researchers. Professors at universities find it almost a natural progression to spend some time in the Library of Congress and then go back to their professorial appointments.
Our Library has a quite inadequate number of research staff, but their work is good value for money, and people out-

side should not quibble if the Library staff is considerably increased. Set against the might of the bureaucracy, we have totally inadequate resources, and that must be remedied.

Mr. Spearing: Does not my hon. Friend think that, in the light of what he is saying, £12,000 is a reasonable request?

Mr. George: One obviously requires two belts as well as braces for the research facilities. Even the task of properly indexing parliamentary Questions appears to have been difficult for the Library. There are 48,000 Questions annually, and on several occasions the staff has not got round to the indexing as one would like. But the point is that there are so few Library staff.
Let us take as an example scientific affairs and defence. There are four staff available for that compared with the facilities available to the Ministry of Defence, with its large number of libraries and research staff. The Library's international section is very good, but it is thinly stretched. I think that it has three clerks—a continent-and-a-half each. However highly qualified they are, such staffing is inadequate.
While Congress has debated the considerable improvement that could be made in libraries and methods of collecting, storing, processing and disseminating information, we have been left behind. I believe that perhaps 10 years ago the facilities in the Library were on a par with any in the world, and probably infinitely better than most, but I do not think that adequate progress has been made. I hope that the deficiencies in the service will be remedied.
I welcome the Select Committee's Report. I have seen the high quality of staffing abroad, and I think that it could be replicated. Mechanisation must come now. If we decide tonight to go ahead with these proposals, there could be an 18-month delay before we even start, and at least five years before the system is fully operational.
I emphasise the point made by the Librarian in his evidence to the Select Committee. He was asked what would happen if we did not start immediately. He replied:
I would say that the fail-safe date in terms of when authorisation should be given for the computer scheme to go ahead is as soon as


possible. If authorisation is given in May or June of this year, I would regard it as satisfactory. Personally I very much hope that it will come then. Any delay after that will delay the implementation of the proposals themselves, and it would not be good in view of our essential commitments to the House.
The Chairman said:
The 'fail-safe' phrase used by Mr. Whitehead I think is very relevant. I understand him to mean ' fail-safe ' in terms of the present system being operated. How long can you continue to give a service with the present facilities, do you think?
The answer was:
I could not guarantee continuing to give a thoroughly satisfactory indexing service with the present facilities for more than two or three years".
and so on.
The situation could be serious not only if we fail to give permission tonight but also if the mechanisation process fails to proceed very swiftly. I reiterate the Committee's conclusions. It is essential to introduce a computer-based indexing system at the earliest date in order to maintain the present high level of services; therefore we must move swiftly towards automation.
This will be no panacea, but I believe that it will greatly facilitate and enhance our work as Members of Parliament. I do not think, as the hon. Member for Newham, South suggests, that we should be too selfish. Information is not the prerogative of Members of Parliament.

Mr. Spearing: I did not say that it was.

Mr. George: I think that we should share our information with others, because this is of reciprocal advantage. We could perhaps allow London University, the Greater London Council, the House of Lords, the media, other libraries, Government Departments, political parties, and so on, to share our facilities, maybe at a cost. I certainly would not oppose the selling of facilities of public information. Maybe they could reciprocate and provide us with information that we require. The information should be widely available to anyone who seeks to obtain it.
I am glad that no one has decided to oppose computerisation. I think it is

long overdue. It is not an innovation, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Newham, South. Many other legislatures do this as a matter of course. I hope that it will go ahead speedily and that we can, as a result of computerisation, do justice to ourselves and justify ourselves to our constituents. It will also enable the excellent research staff in the Library to do justice to themselves and to the community as a whole.

1.7 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): May I simply say that the Government welcome the report and that we would wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) and his colleagues for the work they did on it? He has left me in a difficulty—not the first difficulty that I have been in tonight. It is that he has very effectively dealt with the matter. I have a formidable brief in my folder but it is on very similar lines to the case that we heard deployed by my hon. Friend.
I hope that the House will reach a conclusion very rapidly on this matter and that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who has raised the matter quite properly in a long correspondence—no one objects to that—will see fit not to pursue his amendment. We believe that this matter is long overdue and the Government would wish to deal with it as speedily as possible.

Mr. Spearing: Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he answer the questions I asked about access and other matters relating to the use of the computer? Surely someone here tonight has some responsibility and should give an answer.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), in their Fifth Report, in the last Session of Parliament, on Computer-based Indexing for the Library.

OPPOSITION PARTIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)

Motion made,
That the Resolution of the House of 20th March 1975 shall have effect from 1st January 1978 with the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph 2 of that Resolution:
'That for the purpose of determining the annual maxima of such assistance the following formula shall apply:
£550 for each seat won by the party concerned plus £.1·10 for every 200 votes cast for it at the preceding General Election provided that the maximum payable to any party shall not exceed £165,000'.—[Mr. Snape.]

Hon. Members: Object.

ROAD SIGNS (WALES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]

1.9 a.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the subject of bilingual road signs in Wales which has been the subject of controversy recently. I thank Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity to speak in the Adjournment debate. I also express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), who asked a Question recently on this subject, and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who replied. I deplore the attack that was made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) on my hon. Friend for raising this subject and on my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who replied. It is quite proper for the matter to be raised, and I believe that it is important that information should be given by the Welsh Office. I am pleased to give the Under-Secretary of State this opportunity of stating the lastest position and clearing up any misunderstandings.
I am not merely concerned with increased expenditure, although that is one of a number of reasons why I think we should now review our road sign policy for Wales. On 10th June 1974 I asked the Secretary of State whether he had yet reached a decision on the subject of bilingual road traffic signs in Wales and requested a statement. He replied:
I intend to continue the policy announced under the previous administration of moving towards the progressive introduction of bi-

lingual traffic signs in Wales. The pace of progress in this field will be governed by the availability of resources and the competing claim for funds for other aspects of Welsh language policy.
He went on:
I have decided therefore that on road safety grounds these signs should bear English legend above Welsh.
The statement concluded:
I stress that it is only one of a range of policies being followed by the Government to further the cause of the Welsh language."—[Official Report, 10th June 1974; Vol. 874, c. 489–90.]
I believe that in this and other areas the Government have an excellent record in encouraging the use of the Welsh language. But it was Nye Bevan who said that Socialism was the language of priorities. We must get our priorities right in ensuring not only that we put public money to the best use but that public expenditure which is used to encourage the use of the Welsh language is spent in the best way.
Let us suppose that we were to devote £30 million to encouraging the Welsh language. We must ask ourselves whether we should spend it on speeding up the implementation of bilingual road signs or whether we should instead use it to bring forward a matter which is now under consideration—the plans for an all-Welsh fourth television channel to be shared by the BBC and HTV.
An all-Welsh television channel would be welcomed if both the BBC and HTV were able to show those programmes that would be welcomed by the 80 per cent. of non-Welsh speaking Welsh people while at the same time the desires of the 20 per cent. Welsh-speaking viewers would have their requirements met to a greater extent. Or should we think of making a greater contribution to the National Eisteddfod rather than spending extra on road signs? We must determine how the money can be put to its best use.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen has argued that producing extra road signs produces jobs. I am all for doing what we can to increase the number of jobs, but making extra road signs is not the best way of creating employment. To follow that argument to its logical conclusion, presumably Plaid Cymru would suggest a return of toll gates in order to provide employment. We must increase


job opportunities, but we must have worthwhile jobs.
Now that the policy of bilingual signs is being developed, surely we should review the developments. Nothing pleases me more when travelling to my constituency than to see the sign on entering Wales "Croeso i Cymru"—"Welcome to Wales". But as one leaves the Severn Bridge and travels into Newport one is greeted with the sign "Dociau Casnewydd" and a very big sign stating "Dim cerbydau nwyddau yn y lon dde ½ milltir ymlaen", which means "No goods vehicles in the right hand lane a half of a mile ahead." I have thought to myself many times what effect that sign has on German, French, Belgian and other European drivers driving their articulated lorries to Newport docks. I have thought of them looking at their English-French or English-German dictionaries for the word "dim" and perhaps dimming their lights.
I believe the main recommendation of the Bowen Committee was that the authorities responsible for traffic signs should be required to provide bilingual English and Welsh traffic signs on all categories and classes of roads throughout Wales. What response has there been by the local authorities? It is understood that two out of eight counties had not adopted a bilingual policy, and that a third of them, because of the costs, had shelved plans. Gwent and Mid-Glamorgan while providing bilingual signs on trunk roads are keeping English signs only on minor roads. Apparently, Gwynedd's scheme has been halted because it wants Welsh to appear above the English. There is an obvious need, therefore, to review the situation in the local authorities.
Furthermore, we do not know what the future holds. If we are to have a Welsh Assembly will it take over responsibility for road signs? Will it have a policy of scrapping the county councils and district councils, and should we be erecting road signs monolingual or bilingual if there is—which I would regret—a massive reoganisation of local government again? Are we, as the Deparment of Transport has stated, in the next five years or so to change our system from miles to kilometres? Is this the time to intensify the changing of road signs when we know that the mileage or kilometres are not

just painted on but impregnated on the signs one would require?
While many of us want to encourage use of the Welsh language, must we not assess the damage being done by Welsh language fanatics who deface signs and damage, destroy and remove signposts, despite the serious effect and inconvenience caused by such vandalism? I should like to hear a loud and a clear condemnation from the Welsh Office of those irresponsible actions which are condemned by the vast majority of people in Wales, whether they speak Welsh or not. I should like to see all the political parties in Wales including the Welsh nationalists, condemning such vandalism.
I shall conclude because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty wishes to take part in this debate and it was he who originated this matter in a parliamentary Question. The Cynom Valley Borough Council is concerned about the lack of signposting in the Cynom Valley, Aberdare, Mountain Ash, Abercynon, Aberavon, and Ynysbwl. Those places are not signposted outside the valley whereas other places have signs in both Welsh and English. We must realise that if six signs are needed, three in Welsh and three in English, three signs needed elsewhere may not be erected.
Therefore, I hope that this matter will be reviewed. Although we need to encourage use of the Welsh language, I believe that we should insist on the correct priorities.

1.18 a.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) on securing an Adjournment debate on this subject and seeking to put this matter in perspective. I had hoped to have the assistance, even in this short debate, of hearing the other side of the argument put by the Welsh nationalists, but it appears that at 1.19 a.m. they have retired from the parliamentary forum and are engaged in more profitable activities on behalf of the people of Wales—though I rather doubt it.
I am surprised by the non-attendance of the nationalists at this debate in view of the fanatical way in which they greeted the Answer I received on 16th January


on this subject from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. My Question was:
What was the original estimated cost of providing bilingual road signs throughout Wales; what that figure would have been at current prices; what the programme is now expected to cost in total; and how much of an increase in expenditure this will have been in real money terms."—[Official Report, 16th January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 67]
Doubts have been cast on the reasons why I asked that Question. It was not an annual Question but a biennial Question as befits a bilingual subject. I asked the same Question in 1975 and the final cost estimate then was £10 million. That received a certain outraged response from people in Wales, either Welsh-speaking or English-speaking, and from those who are fortunate enough to speak both languages. Taking into account inflation, an element that bedevils all calculations, the final cost given by the Minister was £17 million.
We have to consider the response in Wales to those figures. It was divided into three parts. The first was the response of the overwhelming majority of people in Wales who, while wishing to nurture the Welsh language and give it all reasonable opportunities to develop and being prepared to dedicate resources to that end—and this applies especially to the young people—nevertheless cannot see how the language is fostered, the community of Wales bettered or the economy of Wales advanced by the spending, over however many years, of £17 million on bilingual road signs.
That was the attitude of a crushingly overwhelming majority of the population, whether English monoglot or Welsh bilingual.
The second response was that articulated to an extent by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who is to reply to the debate. He said, in reasonable terms, that these sums must be divided into what would have to be spent anyway on the renewal, renovation and resurrection of English language road signs in Wales and the £7 million for making them bilingual. The fact that the cost of bilingualism is £7 million rather than £17 million sounds more reasonable, but in a nation with stringently limited resources and few means of adding to those resources even £7 million, it may be con-

sidered, could be better spent on advancing the interests of that nation.
The third response was the outraged opinion of nationalism which, in response to a proper and legitimate parliamentary Question, accused me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State of collusion over these matters and accused me of being anti-Welsh. The accusation of collusion against me, of all people, in connection with the Welsh Office is, to say the least, evidence of political ignorance and historical inadequacy and stupidity. I moderate my language in making these accusations against the leader of Plaid Cymru, the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), who is not here.
The claim that I was anti-Welsh disturbed me even more. Had I been able to get a written copy of what the hon. Gentleman said, as quoted in the South Wales Echo, earlier than I did—the story appeared on 17th January, but I did not receive a copy until the next day—I would have taken up the matter with Mr. Speaker and the hon. Gentleman would have received the overwhelming criticism of the House.
I should like to issue a warning to the hon. Gentleman which I would be glad to deliver personally if he were here in his usual sedentary position. If he says any such thing outside the House again, I will sue him to the point of bankruptcy. If he says it inside the House, I will ensure that he receives the ignominy reserved for hon. Members in the most grave breach of the Privilege of the House.
The Western Mail must be the only newspaper in Britain that would spend time, money and column inches on an editorial on something as insignificant as road signs. On 18th January, the Western Mail summoned itself to its full height and said:
No newspaper should be averse to obtaining information. We do not therefore crib at the fact that Mr. Barry Jones, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Welsh Office, has revealed such a considerable increase in the estimates for the work of converting Welsh road signs to a bilingual system. That needed to be known. But, however inadvertent, it was both unwise and insensitive of him to issue such a bald answer to Mr. Neil Kinnock's question with none of the very important qualifications which he has been obliged to offer today. The net effect of his original


answer was to create what can only be described as a scare story suggesting that £17m. was directly attributable to the decision to change to bilingual signs. Now he has made it clear that the real cost of the added Welsh element is £7m., the other £10m. being inescapable expenditure on normal provision, maintenance and replacement of signs.
When a Minister gives an honest answer to an honest question and a newspaper describes that as a bald answer, and further elaborates it as a scare story, I wonder what the Press is coming to. Can it be that the Press, or at least the Western Mail, is so obsessive and paranoic, and so distorted in its treatment of the fringe issues of the survival of the Welsh language, that it is bound to slander both my hon Friend and myself by distorting the whole nature of my question and of his answer? Can it be that the newspaper that purports to be the national newspaper of Wales can place so little weight on the gross expenditure of £7 million attributable directly to bilingualism as to be able to speak of an unnecessarily bald response?
The newspaper says that there is a misleading nature to both the question and answer. I suspect that what makes the Western Mail in its paranoia, and the Welsh nationalists in their obsession, so sensitive to the question and the answer is that both were the truth, and that is what they have most to fear.

1.27 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) for raising this subject. He has always taken a close interest in it in this House. I listened, too, with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock).
There are compelling and obvious reasons why discussions about the life of the Welsh language should be conducted calmly and with a reasonable hearing afforded to all points of view. In a civilised society the aim should be for an issue like this to be tackled on the basis of consensus.
Fortunately, the approach adopted by the Government has gained the assent of the majority of our fellow countrymen and women.
As has been implied tonight, extreme opinions and extreme behaviour exist, of course, and have to be noted and afforded

the weight they are worth. Broadly, however, I believe that a mainstream of opinion is in harmony with the policies which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has developed. He has frequently expressed his own commitment to the language and explained that the Government's aims are to encourage and foster it whenever it is practicable to do so. The Government's record shows that they have taken a number of realistic decisions in pursuit of these aims.
It is against this background that bilingual road signs have been authorised to be erected progressively on highways in Wales. To give prominence to the Welsh names of our villages, towns and cities—names which have been handed down through centuries and still used naturally by Welsh speakers—is only to accord the language the dignity, status and respect due to it.
The statutory regulations which were laid before Parliament in 1975 include 24 bilingual local direction and informatory signs which can be erected by highway authorities without reference to the Welsh Office. Authorisation for other bilingual signs is readily given.
The policy which has been followed was begun by my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessors as far back as 1970, and in 1974 the remaining decision for him was to decide on the order of the languages. Since then bilingual signs have been provided on all new lengths of motorway and trunk road. Bilingual signs have also been erected where traffic has been re-routed—for example, in Abergavenny. What we have been doing is simply putting up bilingual signs where new signs were needed in any event.
A programme for converting the signs on some 300 miles of existing trunk road was also considered in 1975, but in view of the cost—then estimated at £2·5 million—and the particular emphasis being placed on holding down public expenditure we decided to defer the introduction of bilingual signs on existing routes.
In the interests of safety, the Bowen Committee advised against the introduction of isolated signs, and I would add for the same reason we have simply replaced or refaced a number of existing monolingual signs. Also in the interests of safety we have taken care to design the signs at the optimum size. While costs


are reduced as far as is reasonable, we have carefully protected the ability of drivers to take in the information provided safely in as short a time as possible.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdare and Bedwellty have said, discussion has focused on the figure of £17 million, which was given as a clear response to a direct question about the total and eventual cost of providing bilingual road signs on all roads in Wales.
It has been suggested that the figure is inflated and that this has been done against the interests of the language. The report by the Bowen Committee indicated that the provision of bilingual road signs was likely to be less. At current prices its estimate would work out at about £6 million. But it has to be remembered that we now have practical experience of what is involved in providing bilingual road signs—something the Committee did not have.
Attempts have been made to draw a comparison between the cost of introducing bilingual signs and introducing bilingual signs and introducing metric speeds and distances on highways.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare said, such comparisons are, of course, completely invalid. Costs are related to the size of signs, and I doubt if any drivers would be able to read a directional sign, for example, if it were the size of a speed limit sign—unless, of course, they left their vehicles to read it.
I propose to explain the estimate and put it in perspective so that it can be seen whether it is inflated and whether the money is being handled sensibly.
New signs were erected on the more important roads in Wales in the late 1960s following recommendations of the Worboys Committee. The majority of these signs are still in good condition and should not require replacement for some years. When the time comes for maintenance it should be necessary only to reface the plates and paint the posts. When bilingual signs are used, however, new and larger plates will be required, often with longer and stronger posts and heavier foundations. The complete replacement of all signs will not always be necessary but in many cases there will be no alternative.
The estimate of £17 million is the best figure we can give for the provision of bilingual signs on all roads throughout Wales. If the present monolingual signs remain for some years until they need maintenance, the cost of refacing the plates and some other work will be saved, but these offsets will be relatively small and in any event larger bilingual signs are bound to cost more to maintain.
I have already told hon. Members that just over £1 million averaging £¼million a year over four years, has been spent on the provision of bilingual signs for motorways and trunk roads—that is, highways for which the Welsh Office is responsible. This was on about 30 miles of motorway and 10 miles of general purpose trunk road. There remain 50 miles of motorway and over 900 miles of general purpose trunk road, and for this a further expenditure of £11 million is estimated. This figure is in proportion to the £1 million already spent taking account of the different circumstances of different types of road.
I now turn to the 20,000 miles or so of county roads. For these an allowance of about £5 million for the provision of bilingual signs is reasonable. This estimate is more difficult to make since it is based not on the direct experience of the Welsh Office but on a more general appreciation of local circumstances. It would be expensive to commission a detailed survey of all signs on these roads, and I must make it quite clear that the actual costs will depend on the degree of enthusiasm with which local highway authtorities proceed with conversion programmes.
The £17 million is thus comprised of £1 million already spent on motorways and trunk roads; £11 million as the remaining cost on Welsh Office roads; and £5 million on county roads. New monolingual signs would cost about £10 million, so the cost of adding Welsh to them would be about £7 million, and this over a period of years.
Where signs are erected, as has been the case so far on new trunk roads and motorways, monolingual signs would have had to be provided in any event. The result is that of the £1 million which has been spent so far on providing bilingual signs on motorways and trunk roads, about £600,000 was inevitable and


£400,000 arose because the signs had to have a second language. That is £400,000 over four years, an average of £100,000 a year. The figures of £10 million and £7 million are derived roughly from these proportionate relationships. Applying these figures to a general programme of change involves making assumptions about the engineering, maintenance and unexpired life of existing signs.
It is all very well to say that the £10 million would be incurred anyway, making the net cost of bilingual only £7 million. But a great part of this argument depends on the speed of the change-over. Some existing road signs may be good for a further 20 years or so. But are the proponents of bilingualism willing to wait until every sign in Wales falls naturally to be replaced? If they are not, and if they wish to see the changes completed in, say, five years, then of course we would be incurring premature and unnecessary expenditure on replacing the signs and the relative cost must accordingly be different.
In the time available, I want to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare about devolution and this particular subject. Hon. Members might be aware that the Wales Bill envisages the Assembly having the power to prescribe bilingual signs as well as to authorise them.
My hon. Friend also mentioned metrication. At this stage of the day, all that I want to say about that is that the cost of conversion is low compared with that for bilingual signs because speed limit signs are smaller than most other signs, and in may cases they are much smaller. The signs showing distances will, where-ever possible, simply have the figures altered, probably by the placing of small plates in front of existing figures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare dazzled us all with his command of the Welsh language. I much appreciated his remarks about the "Croeso i Gymru" sign that we see as we enter Wales on the M4. He might recollect that currently that very sign is making a dramatic impact, on television anyway, in advertisements by the Wales Tourist Board in an attempt to attract more people to Wales.
On this matter, I think that a brief comment about county roads would not—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to Two o'clock.